11 11  ill 


iilii;!;' 


■11'  I't'/  I 
ll.hl,i!l'.|l,l 

■'iim's  '.Lii.i'j 


i!]i!!iiiiillili!iii!liii!iili!L., 


ii! 


Columbia  SBnitJersittp 

intI)eCttpofllfttigork 

THE  LIBRARIES 


Bequest  of 

Frederic  Bancroft 

1860-1945 


r 


p 


/ 


WORKS  OF 
THE  RIGHT  REVEREND  JOHN  ENGLAND 


THE  WORKS  OF  THE  RIGHT  REVEREND 

JOHN  ENGLAND 

.      FIRST  BISHOP  OF  CHARLESTON 

Edited  with  Introduction,  Notes,  and  Index 
under  the  direction  of 

The  Most  Revefiend  Sebastian  G.  Messmer 
Archbishop  of  Milwaukee 


With  Portraits 


V 


OLUME 


II 


Cleveland,  Ohio 
The  AriKur  H.  Clark  Company 


COPYRIGHT  1908,  BY 

THE  AETHUE  H.  CLAEK  COMPANY 


ALL  EIGHTS  RESERVED 


CONTENTS  OF  VOLUME  II 

PART  I.     DOCTRINE   [concluded]. 

Defence  of  "A  Protestant  Catechism."     [Concluded  from 

Volume  I.]  9 

PART  II.     CONTROVERSY. 

Judicial  Office  of  the  Church.  171 

The  Vicious  Circle.  210 

Calumnies  of  J.  Blanco  White.  213 


PART    I 
DOCTRINE 

{Concluded  from  Volume  I) 


LETTER  III. 

Ye   seraphs,   who    God 's   throne   encircling   still, 
With  holy  zeal  your  golden  censers  fill; 
Ye  flaming  ministers,  to  distant  lands 
Who    bear,    obsequious,    his    divine    commands; 
Ye   cherubs,   who   compose   the   sacred   choir, 
Attuning   to   the   voice   th'   angelic   lyre! 
Or  ye,  fair  natives  of  the  heavenly  plain. 
Who  once  were  mortal — now  a  happier  train! 
Who   spend   in   peaceful   love   your  joyful   hours, 
In   blissful   meads,   and   amaranthine    bowers, 
Oh,  lend  one  spark  of  your  celestial  fire. 
And  deign  my  glowing  bosom  to  inspire. 
And  aid  the  Muse's  inexperienced  wing, 
"Vvhile  Goodness,  theme  divine,  she  soars  to  sing. 

Boyse. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  June  15,  1829. 
To  the  Editors : 

Gentlemen : — I  now  proceed  to  show  that  your  correspondent  ' '  Pro- 
testant Catholic"  is  not  only  inconsistent  with  the  tenets  of  your  church, 
but  that  he  has  altogether  failed  in  sustaining  his  first  charge  against  me. 

He  stated  that  Roman  Catholics  called  upon  the  angels  and  saints 
in  the  same  way  that  they  did  upon  God,  to  be  merciful  to  them,  and  this 
ground  has  been  removed,  because  of  the  untruth  of  the  statement. 
His  next  averment  is  that  Roman  Catholics  "pray  to  angels  and  saints 
to  save  them  by  their  merits."  And  here  he  assumes  two  grounds  for 
their  condemnation :  first,  that  it  is  idolatry  to  pray  to  the  blessed  spirits, 
next,  that  we  dishonour  Christ  when  we  ask  to  be  saved  by  the  merits 
of  such  beings.     I  shall  take  each  topic  separately. 

In  paragraph  10,  he  lays  down  his  principle:  "And  what  is  prayer 
offered  to  a  creature,  whether  visible  or  invisible,  if  not  idolatry?"  If 
by  prayer  he  meant  the  homage  which  is  due  only  to  God,  by  which  we 
ask  of  him  as  the  sole  fountain  of  grace  and  mercy,  that  which  he  alone 
can  effectually  bestow,  I  answer  distinctly,  to  offer  such  prayer  to  any 
creature  would  be  idolatry.  But  it  is  untrue  that  Roman  Catholics  do 
offer  any  such  homage  to  any  creature,  and  until  your  correspondent 
shall  have  proved  that  they  do,  he  will  not  have  laid  any  ground  for 


10  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

the  application  of  his  principle :  my  assertion  is  that  he  has  not  shown, 
and  cannot  show  that  such  prayer  is  so  offered. 

But  the  word  prayer,  frequently  signifies  a  "request,"  "an  intreaty 
made  by  one  creature  to  another,  for  such  aid  as  that  creature  can  be- 
stow," and  in  this  sense  I  submit  that  prayer  might  be  lawfully  made 
by  a  human  being,  not  only  to  his  fellow-man,  but  to  any  other  creature 
that  can  aid  him. — To  make  application  for  such  aid  to  one  who  could 
not  hear,  or  who  hearing,  could  not  help,  might  be  folly;  but  it  would 
not  be  idolatry.  If  prayer  of  this  latter  kind  be  offered  to  angels  and 
saints,  I  assert  it  is  not  idolatry. 

To  say  that  no  distinction  can  be  made  by  the  suppliant  who  ad- 
dresses a  principal  from  whom  alone  the  favour  must  come,  and  an 
intercessor  who  might  join  in  the  supplication  to  that  principal,  is  to  con- 
tradict not  only  common  sense,  but  daily  experience,  and  the  very  para- 
graph itself  affords  full  evidence  that  the  Roman  Catholics  do  act  upon 
this  distinction. 

' '  But  Eoman  Catholics,  do  not,  they  say,  commit  idolatry  in  praying  to  saints ; 
for  they  offer  them  only  an  inferior  worship,  and  not  that  which  is  due  to  God — 
they  only  invoke  them,  and  ask  their  help  in  obtaining  the  benefits  which  God  alone 
can  confer. ' ' 

The  admission  here  made,  renders  it  unnecessary  for  me  to  adduce 
any  farther  evidence  for  the  fact  that  the  Roman  Catholics  do  make  the 
distinction. — The  word  prayer  is  then  susceptible  of  two  meanings, 
which  are  totally  unlike:  and  Roman  Catholics  do  not  pray  to  angels 
and  saints  in  the  first  sense  of  the  word :  to  state  or  to  insinuate  that  they 
do  is  to  misrepresent  them.  Your  correspondent  makes  this  statement 
by  a  miserable  quibble  upon  the  ambiguity  of  the  word,  prayer,  and 
by  an  unbecoming  equivocation  attempts  to  show  against  their  own 
declaration,  that  Roman  Catholics  do  pray  to  the  created  spirits  in  the 
same  w^ay  that  they  offer  their  prayers  to  God. 

"Surely  the  07-a  pro  noiis,  with  a  view  to  the  benefits  which  God  alone  can 
confer,  addressed  to  an  invisible  being,  and  in  the  same  office  of  devotion  in  which 
God  is  directly  supplicated,  is,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  prayer;  and  what  is 
prayer  offered  to  a  creature,  whether  visible  or  invisible,  if  not  idolatry." 

"When  we  ask  another  to  * '  pray  for  us, ' '  we  avow  by  the  phrase  that 
the  person  so  called  upon  by  us  must  address  himself  to  another,  who 
can  grant  what  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  this  intercessor  to  bestow. 
Hence,  when  in  the  same  office  of  devotion  we  say  "Lord,  have  mercy 
on  us."  "Christ,  have  mercy  on  us."  "Holy  Mary,  Pray  for  us." 
So  far  from  placing  Christ  and  Mary  upon  an  equal  footing,  we  distinct- 
ly profess  that  mercy  is  derived  only  from  him,  and  that  she  can  do 
no  more  than  obtain  from  him  by  her  prayer,  to  bestow  the  mercy  upon 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  11 

us.  Thus  if  the  prayer  to  the  only  source  of  mercy,  be  worship  of  adora- 
tion; it  is  evident  that  by  our  prayer  to  the  blessed  Virgin,  we  intreat 
of  Mary  to  adore  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Your  correspondent  cannot 
then  assert  that  we  pray  to  any  angel  or  saint,  in  the  same  manner  as 
we  do  to  God,  until  he  shall  have  discovered  us  asking  God  to  pray  for 
us  to  the  angels  and  saints :  asking  God  thus  to  adore  the  blessed  spirits. 
Have  we  then  not  been  misrepresented  by  him? 

But  in  paragraph  20,  he  is  still  less  excusable.  By  a  mistranslation 
and  a  false  suggestion  he  endeavours  to  distort  the  meaning  of  a  prayer 
in  the  Mass,  to  show  that  we  place  Jesus  Christ  and  the  saints  upon  the 
same  footing.  In  paragraph  5,  he  quotes  from  the  translation  of  the 
Missal,  printed  in  New  York  in  1822.  He  refers  to  the  same  edition 
in  paragraph  7.  I  am  to  suppose  naturally,  that  he  refers  to  the  same 
book  in  his  quotation  in  paragraph  20.  In  that  place  he  gives  the  fol- 
lowing as  the  prayer  on  which  he  builds  his  argument. 

' '  Eeceive,  O  Holy  Trinity,  this  oblation,  which  we  make  to  the  memory  of  the 
Passion,"  and  so  forth. 

The  original  Latin  is  placed  in  one  column  and  the  translation  in 
another  upon  the  same  page  281  of  the  edition  referred  to,  and  is  the 
following. 

Suscipe  Sancta  Trinitas  hanc  Ghlationem  quam  tihi  offerimus  ob  memoriam 
Passionis,  and  so  forth. 

The  translation  which  he  quotes  as  in  authorized  use,  paragraph 
5,  gives  us  the  following  in  page  281: — 

' '  Eeceive,  O  Holy  Trinity,  this  oblation  which  we  make  to  thee  in  memory 
of  the  Passion,  Eesurrection,  and  Ascension  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  in  honour 
of  the  blessed  Mary  ever  a  virgin,  of  blessed  John  Baptist,  the  holy  Apostles,  Peter 
and  Paul,  and  all  the  Saints;  that  it  may  be  available  to  their  honour,  and  our 
salvation:  and  may  they  vouchsafe  to  intercede  for  us  in  heaven,  whose  memory  we 
celebrate  on  earth.     Through  the  same  Christ  our  Lord.     Amen." 

His  object  was  to  persuade  his  readers  that  Jesus  Christ  and  the 
saints  were  considered  co-equal  intercessors,  and  therefore  after  the  mis- 
translation, he  who  complained  so  much  of  my  having  made  an  addition, 
paragraph  23,  now  interpolates  in  the  prayer  the  phrase  (Jesus,  and  so 
forth)  between  the  words  they  which  he  marks  in  italics,  and  the  words 
"vouchsafe  to  intercede:"  when  such  was  by  no  means  the  meaning  of 
the  prayer.  I  do  not  think  it  very  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  when 
this  critic  undertook  to  help  out  his  own  construction  by  introducing  his 
own  words,  he  looked  at  the  explanation  given  in  the  Missal  itself  for 
the  purpose  of  knowing  whether  he  was  fairly  representing  the  doctrine 
which  he  undertook  to  explain.  If  he  did  not,  he  was  negligent.  If  he 
did,  he  was  dishonest,  for  he  found  the  following. 


12  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

' '  The  celebrant  then  comes  to  the  middle  part  of  the  altar,  and  bowing  down, 
says  the  next  prayer,  Eeceive,  O  Holy  Trinity,  and  so  forth.  This  prayer,  in  its 
present  form,  is  probably  a  cause  of  difficulty  to  some  persons  who  do  not  examine 
with  sufficient  care,  nor  reflect  upon  what  they  too  hastily  condemn.  They  object 
that  by  this  prayer,  the  church  professes  to  offer  the  sacrifice  equally  to  the  blessed 
Trinity  and  to  the  saints.  This  is  not  the  fact,  nor  is  such  the  meaning  of  the 
prayer.  It  consists  of  three  distinct  parts.  The  first  requesting  the  oblation  to 
be  received  in  memory  of  the  Passion,  Eesurrection,  and  Ascension  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  This  is  distinct,  and  the  plain  meaning  of  the  request  is  evidently 
conformable  to  the  institution. "-  ' '  Do  this  for  a  commemoration  of  me. ' '  The 
second  part,  requesting  the  oblation  to  be  received  in  honour  of  the  blessed  Virgin, 
and  other  saints — that  it  may  be  available  to  their  honour  and  to  our  salvation. 
This  latter  clause,  '  our  salvation, '  creates  no  difiiculty.  The  question  is  now  what 
is  meant  by  offering  the  sacrifice  in  honour  of  the  Saints?  First,  then,  the  word 
honour  in  the  first  part  of  the  prayer,  is  clearly  not  an  exact,  though  it  be  a  literal 
translation  of  the  original  prayer — for  it  should  be  rather  translated  on  the  festival 
of  the  blessed  Virgin,  and  so  forth.  Le  Brun  remarks "'  that  the  words  found  in 
the  oldest  copies  are  in  honore,  and  not  in  honorem,  and  states  also,  that  the  words 
ad  honorem  found  immediately  after,  strengthens  the  proof  of  this  reading  being 
correct,  for  the  persons  who  framed  the  prayer  would  otherwise  have  fallen  into  a 
glaring  and  inexplicable  tautology.  In  honore  evidently  ought  to  be  translated  "on 
the  festival  or  at  the  time  we  honour."  Thus  it  would  appear  as  well  from  the 
critical  examination,  as  from  various  facts  which  that  author  adduces,  that  this  is 
the  true  meaning  of  this  first  phrase.  But  ad  honorem,  ' '  that  it  may  be  available 
to  their  honour"  i.  e.,  the  saints,  is  distinct,  we  must  then  see  its  meaning. 

' '  St.  Augustine  writes,  '  So  that  although  we  raise  altars  to  the  memory  of  the 
martyrs,  we  do  not  build  any  to  them.  For  which  of  our  prelates  at  any  time  cele- 
brating at  the  altar  in  any  of  the  places  of  the  saints,  has  said,  ' '  We  offer  unto  thee, 
Peter,  or  Paul,  or  Cyprian?"  But  that  which  is  offered,  is  offered  to  God,  who  has 
crowned  the  martyrs,  at  those  places  where  is  celebrated  their  memory  whom  he  has 
crowned. '  And  again,  in  another  place,  '  Nor  do  we  give  to  those  martyrs  temples, 
priests  and  sacrifices:  because,  not  they,  but  their  God  is  our  God.'  Thus  no  sacrifice 
was  offered  to  the  saints,  though  places  were  consecrated  to  their  memory,  where  their 
virtues  were  honoured,  and  altars  raised  at  which  this  honour  was  paid.  Not  by 
sacrifice  to  them,  but  by  sacrifice  to  God;  to  their  God  and  ours,  to  him  who  enabled 
them  by  his  grace  to  triumph  over  sin,  and  to  obtain  glory — the  honour  we  pay 
to  them  redovmds  to  him,  who  in  them  has  crowned  his  own  graces;  and  when  we 
pray  that  this  sacrifice  may  be  received  by  the  Godhead,  it  is  to  the  Holy  Trinity 
it  is  offered,  not  the  saints;  it  is  offered  in  commemoration  of  Christ,  on  the  festival 
of  the  saints,  perhaps  in  places  consecrated  to  God  in  their  memory,  and  we  pray 
it  may  be  available  to  their  honour;  we  do  not  offer  it  to  them  that  they  may  receive 
it — this  would  be  idolatry.  But  it  is  offered  to  God  to  their  honour;  and  so  far 
from  this  being  derogatory  to  the  honour  of  Christ,  or  against  his  institution,  it  is 
calculated  to  promote  his  honour,  and  in  conformity  with  his  institutions;  for  when 
we  honour  the  saints,  we  only  pay  to  God  the  homage  of  our  praise  for  their  per- 
fections, we  praise  his  work  in  them,  and  their  glory  redounds  to  Him  who  created 


'  LuTce  xxii.  v.   19. 

'  Explic.  lit.  hist,  and  dog.  part  iii.  art.  ix. 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  13 

them  and  sanctified  them:  and  surely  it  was  to  procure  them  honour,  and  glory, 
and  salvation,  that  he  sacrificed  himself  on  Calvary,  and  we  only  repeat  the  offering 
for  the  purpose  of  commemorating  and  fulfilling  his  institutions.  Nay,  he  distinctly 
declares,"  "For  them  do  I  sanctify  myself,  that  they  also  may  be  sanctified  in  truth, 
and  its  consequence,  honoured  in  glory." 

' '  Thus  the  sacrifice  is  offered  to  the  Trinity,  but  not  to  the  saints :  and,  though 
they  are  honoured,  that  respect  redounds  to  the  greater  blory  of  the  Lord. 

* '  The  third  part  of  the  prayer  is  a  request,  that  those  saints  whose  memory  we 
celebrate  on  earth,  may  intercede  for  us  in  heaven.  Here,  then,  we  distinctly  point 
out  how  far  they  can  assist  us,  'by  intercession,'  to  be  again  subordinate  to  that 
of  the  Eedeemer,  and  only  available  through  his  merits;  for  the  prayer  concludes 
by  the  words,  which  clearly  prove  those  merits  to  be  the  foundation  on  which  we 
rest  all  our  hope,  by  those  words :  '  Through  the  same  Christ  our  Lord.     Amen. ' 

"But  why,  it  is  said,  need  we  ask  to  have  our  sacrifice  received,  if  that  sacrifice 
be  Christ,  who  must  necessarily  be  acceptable?  Because  we  are  not  necessarily 
acceptable,  and  the  object  is  to  apply  to  us  the  benefit  of  this  offering,  by  granting 
to  us  those  dispositions  which  will  qualify  us  to  profit  by  that  which  in  itself  is 
excellent. 

' '  This  prayer  was  originally  said  only  on  the  festivals  of  saints,  and  special 
mention  then  was  made  of  that  saint,  whose  festival  was  celebrated:  but,  during  the 
latter  seven  hundred  or  eight  hundred  years,  the  special  name  has  been  omitted,  and 
the  general  form  used  as  now.  Many  of  the  ancient  Missals  style  it  the  prayer 
of  St.  Ambrose:  we,  however,  have  no  better  evidence  to  attribute  its  formation  to 
him." — (Missal,  Explic.  Ivii.) 

Thus  no  part  of  our  office,  no  tenet,  no  practice  of  ours,  will  for  a 
moment  countenance  the  notion  that  we  pray  to  the  created  spirits, 
in  the  same  manner  that  we  do  to  God :  and  every  attempt  to  impute  this 
to  us,  is  a  misrepresentation ;  and  your  correspondent  has  garbled, 
changed,  added,  I  may  properly  say,  interpolated  and  equivocated,  in 
his  vain  efforts  to  attain  this  object.  Roman  Catholics  have  at  least 
so  much  common  sense  as  to  know,  that  God  is  the  Creator  of  angels  and 
saints,  and  that  these  blessed  spirits  are  not  their  own  creators:  Cath- 
olics know  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  only  Redeemer,  and  to  the  Creator, 
and  Redeemer,  and  Sanctifier  only,  do  they  look  for  mercy  at  its  source. 

Having  stated  the  doctrine  of  Roman  Catholics  to  be,  (paragraph 
10,)  as  regards  prayer  to  the  angels  and  saints,  "only  to  invoke  them, 
and  ask  their  help,  in  obtaining  benefits  which  God  alone  can  confer," 
the  writer  with  the  contradictory  name,  represented  truly  the  second 
kind  of  prayer  above  described,  and  which  Catholics  hold  it  lawful  to 
use  towards  any  of  our  fellow-creatures,  who  can  hear  and  help  us. 
Yet  this  same  correspondent  of  yours,  unqualifiedly  calls  such  invoca- 
tion and  demand  of  help,  idolatry.  We  now  agree  in  the  facts ;  and  our 
difference  is  upon  principle.     Let  us  see  a  specimen  of  his  theology,  and 


"  John  xvii.  19. 


14  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

of  its  necessary  consequences.  He  lays  down  the  principle,  that  "prayer 
offered  to  a  creature,  whether  visible  or  invisible,  is  idolatry."  To 
invoke,  means  no  more  than  to  call  upon,  and  generally  for  a  favour; 
to  invoke  and  ask  help,  means  that  the  persoon  is  called  upon  to  grant 
that  help,  as  a  matter  of  countesy  or  favour,  not  as  claimed  of  right: 
and  this  is  prayer;  by  his  own  statement,  such  prayer  can  be  offered  to 
visible,  equally  as  to  invisible  creatures ;  and  your  correspondent  in- 
forms us  that  it  is  equally  idolatry,  in  one  case,  as  in  the  other.  I  agree 
perfectly  with  him  in  the  principle,  though  I  widely  differ  from  him 
in  my  results.  He  would  assert  that,  in  each  case,  it  would  be  idolatry: 
I  say  it  is  not  so  in  either.  He  admits  as  a  fact,  that  "Protestants  ask 
the  prayers  of  the  faithful,  or  those  they  consider  so  on  earth,  in  the 
body,  that  God  ■wall  comfort  them  in  sorrow,  sustain  them  in  trial,  and 
save  them  from  danger."  Thus  they  entreat  the  faithful  in  the  body, 
they  invoke  them:  they  ask  their  help,  by  the  ora  pro  nohis,  "pray  for 
us,"  with  a  view  to  benefits  which  God  alone  can  confer;  and  thus 
Protestants,  according  to  this  theologian,  are  guilty  of  idolatry.  No, 
no,  for  the  persons  whom  they  invoke,  are  in  the  body: — upon  earth. 
I  answer,  "they  are  visible."  If  they  were  disembodied  spirits,  and  not 
upon  earth,  they  would,  it  is  true,  be  invisible  to  us,  but  not  the  less 
really  in  existence :  and,  whether  visible  or  invisible,  the  contradictory 
writer  took  good  care  to  make  his  principle  embrace  both. 

It  is  very  true,  that  another  question  will  fairly  offer  itself,  respect- 
ing the  wisdom  of  addressing  ourselves  to  intercessors  invisible  to  us, 
who  have  departed  from  the  body:  but  the  question  of  idolatry  and 
utility  are  very  different.  To  invoke  and  pray,  in  our  second  meaning 
of  prayer,  to  an  angel  or  a  saint,  is  then  no  more  idolatry,  than  to  invoke 
and  ask  the  aid  of  a  creature  upon  earth;  and  if  Catholics  are  guilty 
of  this  crime,  by  invoking  those  spirits,  Protestants  are  equally  guilty, 
by  invoking  each  other.  So  far,  the  two  cases  resemble  each  other  in 
principle.  But  here  the  similarity  ceases.  He,  with  apparent  triumph, 
asks  whether  the  cases  resemble  each  other?  I  say  that,  in  principle, 
to  this  extent,  they  do.  Before  I  take  up  the  point  of  difference,  it 
might  not  be  amiss  for  me  to  remind  you  of  one  who  certainly  besought 
earnestly  the  prayers  of  persons,  w^ho,  though  visible,  and  on  earth, 
and  in  the  body,  yet  were  to  him  as  perfectly  invisible  at  the  time,  as 
any  of  those  blessed  spirits,  whom  I  presume  you  will  admit  he  occas- 
sionally  saw. 

"30.  Now,  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  for  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ's 
sake,  and  for  the  love  of  the  Spirit,  that  ye  strive  together  with  me  in 
your  prayers  to  God  for  me ; 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  15 

"31.  That  I  may  be  delivered  from  them  that  do  not  believe  in 
Judea ;  and  that  my  service  which  I  have  for  Jerusalem,  may  be  accepted 
of  the  saints; 

"32.  That  I  may  come  among  you  with  joy  by  the  will  of  God, 
and  may  wnth  you  be  refreshed."     (St.  Paul,  Ep.  to  Rom.,  chap,  xv.) 

The  allegation  upon  which  the  charge  of  idolatry  was  founded, 
being,  that  Eoman  Catholics  prayed  to  angels  and  saints,  in  such  a  man- 
ner as  to  commit  this  crime,  I  apprehend  that  I  should  have  sufficiently 
vindicated  my  denial  of  the  charge,  by  what  I  have  written;  but  your 
correspondent  has  chosen  to  go  much  farther,  and  it  perhaps  will  be  as 
well  to  follow  him. 

"VVe  have  seen  that  it  would  not  be  idolatry  to  invoke,  or  call  upon 
one  of  the  faithful  in  the  body,  to  unite  with  us  in  prayer  to  God.  It 
remains  to  examine,  whether  the  mere  circumstance  of  making  a  similar 
request  of  an  invisible  or  spiritual  creature,  would  thereby  become  idol- 
atry. I  will  at  once  say,  it  would  not :  because,  to  constitute  that  crime, 
we  must  give  to  some  creature,  visible  or  invisible,  corporeal  or  spiritual, 
the  homage  due  to  God  alone:  the  mere  circumstance  of  invisibility,  or 
spirituality,  will  not  change  the  principle.  The  jet  of  the  crime  con- 
sists, in  giving  to  a  creature,  what  belongs  only  to  the  Creator.  Now, 
we  never  worship  God  by  asking  him  to  join  us  in  prayer,  by  asking  him 
"to  pray  for  us,"  by  asking  him  "to  make  intercession  for  us."  Hence, 
to  address  a  fellow-creature  in  this  manner,  is  not  to  treat  it  as  we  treat 
God,  but  in  a  way  which  no  rational  or  religious  being  would  act  to- 
wards the  Creator.  To  address  to  God  such  prayers  as  those  which  we 
address  to  angels  and  saints,  would  be  to  derogate  from  his  honour,  and 
to  blaspheme.  When,  therefore,  we  thus  address  the  blessed  spirits, 
we  do  not  pay  to  them  the  homage  which  we  pay  to  God. 

The  other  differences  alluded  to  in  the  tenth  paragraph,  are :  first,  a 
doubt  as  to  whether  the  being  whom  we  ask  to  pray  for  us,  is  in  heaven. 
Suppose  he  is  not:  then  the  worst  will  be,  that  our  labour  will  be  just 
as  much  lost,  as  would  be  that  of  a  good  Protestant  who  would  write  to 
a  friend  in  a  distant  place  to  pray  for  him,  and  the  friend  dies  before 
the  letter  arrives.  We  believe,  however,  iipon  grounds  which  satisfy 
ourselves,  that  we  can  know,  in  some  instances,  that  God  has  admitted 
particular  individuals  to  his  presence,  and  we  address  ourselves  only  to 
them :  but,  if  even  here  we  should,  being  deluded,  ask  the  prayers  of  one 
who  is  a  reprobate,  we  are  in  no  worse  plight,  than  probably  are  many 
of  our  Protestant  friends  themselves,  who  have  often  been  imposed  upon 
by  hypocrites,  whose  prayers  they  have  besought,  under  the  impression 
of  their  being  virtuous ;  but  surely  this  mistake  is  not  idolatry. 


16  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

Your  correspondent  next  states  a  new  difference  to  be,  that  we  know 
not  that  those  blessed  spirits  are  accessible,  and  we  can  surely  have 
access  to  the  faithful  in  the  body  on  earth.  This  I  call  begging  the  ques- 
tion: for  we  assert  that  there  is  equally  certain  access  to  those  blessed 
spirits.  Yet,  still  were  there  no  access  to  them,  it  would  only  be  folly, 
not  idolatry,  to  ask  their  prayers. 

In  the  same  tenth  paragraph,  which  indeed  contains  the  chief  part 
of  his  argument,  he  asserts  another  difference  between  the  blessed  in 
heaven  and  the  faithful  in  the  body  to  be,  that  we  know  not  that  the 
former  can  pray  for  us,  or  help  us ;  whilst  we  do  know  that  the  latter 
can.  This  also  is  assuming  what  we  deny;  and  such  ignorance,  if  it 
even  existed  on  our  part,  would  not  constitute  idolatry. 

Upon  these  grounds,  I  then  state:  that  idolatry  being  the  giving 
to  any  creature  the  worship  due  only  to  God,  in  order  to  prove  us  guilty 
thereof,  in  praying  to  angels  and  saints,  it  must  be  shown  that  we  pray 
to  them  in  such  a  way  as  is  due  only  to  God.  But  we  do  not  pray  to  them 
in  that  manner,  but  only  in  that  manner  in  which  Protestants  pray  to 
just  men  on  earth,  in  the  body ;  and  as  this  is  not  on  their  part  idolatry, 
so  neither  is  our  conduct  idolatrous.  In  another  place,  I  shall  show 
that  it  is  neither  foolish  nor  irreligious. 

We  now  come  to  another  point.  "Catholics  ask  salvation  through 
the  merits  of  the  angels  and  saints."  No  attempt  having  been  made 
to  produce  any  evidence  whatever  to  sustain  the  charge  of  our  asking 
salvation  ("to  save  them")  through  the  merits  of  the  angels,  and  the 
proposition  being  conjunctive,  I  might,  upon  this  single  ground,  claim 
to  have  the  whole  assertion  rejected  as  not  proved.  I  shall,  however, 
not  use  this  advantage.  I  shall  merely  say  that  we  deny,  and  our  im- 
pugner  has  not  attempted  to  show  that  denial  to  be  unfounded,  that  we 
do  pray  to  the  angels  to  save  us  by  their  merits.  The  only  proof  adduced 
is  a  prayer  to  the  guardian  angel,  paragraph  4,  in  which  not  one  syllable 
of  or  regarding  merits  is  to  be  found.  I  do  not,  of  course,  admit  the 
unfounded  assertions  and  repetitions  of  your  correspondent  to  be  proofs. 

In  paragraph  7,  he  adduces  the  documents  regarding  the  merits 
of  the  saints ;  after  four  prayers,  in  which  mention  is  made  of  their 
merits  and  one  of  intercession  only,  the  writer  concludes,  in  paragraph 
8:  "It  is  then  a  fact,  that  Roman  Catholics  do  pray  to  angels  and 
saints  to  save  them  by  their  merits."  So  far  as  the  angels  are  concerned, 
it  is  obviously  not  a  fact.  Now,  to  understand  the  question  properly, 
we  must  be  clear  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  terms  used;  we  should  have 
no  quarrel  merely  about  words.  Doctrines,  and  not  expressions,  form 
the  subject  of  our  inquiry. 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  17 

I  shall  first  state  what  I  conceive  is  meant  by  the  expression  "save 
them. ' '  I  am  under  the  impression  that,  amongst  Protestants,  it  means, 
to  bring  a  person  from  a  state  of  sin,  whereby  he  is  exposed  to  eternal 
punishment,  to  a  state  of  justification  Avherein  he  becomes  entitled  to 
heaven,  that  is,  "save  them  from  hell,"  which  is  the  place  of  punish- 
ment for  sin.  The  word  merits,  I  believe,  is  at  present,  by  the  great 
bulk  of  Protestants  in  this  Union,  considered  as  implying  a  claim  of  pure 
and  strict  justice  on  the  part  of  the  meritorious,  which  gives  them  a  com- 
plete right  to  demand  an  equivalent  from  the  person  against  whom 
they  have  this  claim.  Thus,  the  impression  conveyed  to  the  Protestant 
mind  by  the  expression,  "A  Catholic  believes  that  he  can  be  saved  by 
the  merits  of  the  saints,"  is,  that  we  believe  the  saints  have  some  demand 
of  strict  justice  upon  God,  by  reason  of  some  service  they  have  done 
him,  independently  of  any  claim  of  his  upon  them ;  and  by  virtue  of 
which  demand,  they  can,  in  strict  right,  save  sinners  from  hell  and  bring 
them  to  heaven.  Now,  Roman  Catholics  consider  it  a  heresy  to  make 
any  such  assertion.  They  condemn  the  Pelagians  as  erring  from  the 
faith,  for  asserting  that  a  man  can,  by  the  proper  use  of  his  own  facul- 
ties, merit  heaven  for  himself,  which  is  much  less  than  is  implied  in 
the  above  assertion.  Hence  it  is  a  misrepresentation  of  Catholic  doc- 
trine to  assert,  that  it  teaches  that  we  can  be  so  saved  either  by  our  own 
merits,  or  by  the  merits  of  angels  and  saints.  It  is  also,  of  course,  a 
misrepresentation  to  assert,  that  we  pray  to  saints  in  this  sense,  or  in 
any  other  like  this,  to  save  us  by  their  merits. 

Thus,  the  Catholic  doctrine,  as  laid  down  in  the  sixth  session  of  the 
Council  of  Trent,  on  the  13th  of  January,  1547,  is — 

* '  That  man  cannot,  by  his  own  works,  which  are  done  either  accord- 
ing to  the  teaching  of  hiunan  nature  or  of  the  law,  without  divine  grace 
through  Jesus  Christ,  be  justified  before  God. — Canon  I. 

"That  divine  grace  is  not  given  through  Jesus  Christ,  merely  that 
a  man  might  with  more  ease  live  justly,  and  merit  eternal  life ;  as  if  he 
might  be  able  to  do  so  in  any  manner-  by  free  will,  without  grace ;  but 
yet  hardly,  and  with  difficulty. — Canon  II. 

' '  That  a  man  cannot,  without  the  preventing  inspiration  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  his  help,  believe,  hope,  love  or  repent  as  he  ought,  so  that 
the  grace  of  justification  should  be  conferred  upon  him. — Canon  III. 

"That  men  are  not  justified  without  the  justice  of  Christ,  by  which 
he  merited  for  us. " — Canon  X. 

In  the  decree  concerning  original  sin,  passed  on  the  17th  of  June, 
1546,  in  the  third  paragraph,  it  is  distinctly  stated  as  Catholic  doctrine, 
that  this  sin  cannot  be  removed  by  the  strength  of  human  nature,  nor 


18  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

by  any  other  remedy  "but  by  the  merit  of  the  only  mediator,  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  who  reconciled  us  to  God,  in  his  blood." 

Thus,  the  only  mode  by  which  we  can  be  saved  from  sin,  be  justified 
before  God,  live  justly,  believe,  hope,  love,  and  repent  as  we  ought,  so 
that  the  grace  of  justification  should  be  conferred  upon  us,  and,  of  course, 
eternal  life  procured,  is  through  the  divine  grace  of  Jesus  Christ,  our 
only  reconciling  mediator,  by  and  through  whose  merits  only  this  can 
be  obtained.  I  could  multiply  evidences  of  this  being  the  doctrine  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  cite  the  various  texts  of  Scripture,  pas- 
sages from  the  fathers,  and  decisions  of  previous  Councils  to  which 
the  Council  of  Trent  refers,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  this  was 
always  the  doctrine  of  the  Church:  but  it  is  unnecessary,  for  I  presume 
it  will  be  conceded  that  the  Canons  of  this  Council  itself  will  be  admit- 
ted as  sufficient  evidence  of  the  fact  that  such  is  our  doctrine. 

How,  then,  are  we  to  reconcile  the  collects  of  the  Missal,  in  which 
we  pray  to  the  saints  to  save  us  by  their  merits,  with  this  doctrine? 
Does  not  the  Missal  contradict  the  Council?  By  no  means.  The  recon- 
ciliation is  easy  between  the  prayers  and  the  decrees.  The  meaning  of 
the  passage,  "save  us  by  his  merits,"  if  applied  to  Jesus  Christ  in  the 
sense  in  which  those  words  are  understood  by  Protestants,  as  above  ex- 
plained, will  give  the  exact  meaning  of  the  Council.  Now,  when  Roman 
Catholics  apply  the  word  merit  to  a  creature  as  regards  God,  it  could 
not,  without  a  contradiction  to  their  doctrine,  have  this  same  meaning: 
and  they  declare  that  such  is  not  the  meaning  which  they  attach  to  the 
expression ;  but  they  explain  it  in  altogether  a  different  sense.  Now, 
every  good  writer  upon  logic,  as  well  as  every  honest  man,  Avill  tell  us 
that,  when  we  inquire  as  to  a  man's  belief,  we  must  take  his  own  mean- 
ing of  his  own  words,  in  order  to  understand  what,  in  fact,  he  does  be- 
lieve ;  but  if  we  force  upon  his  words  a  sense  which  he  disclaims,  we 
do  not  correctly  exhibit  his  belief,  but  our  own  imputation.  I  shall,  in 
my  next  letter,  explain  what  we  understand  by  the  merits  of  the  saints : 
it  is  enough  for  my  present  purpose  to  state,  that  we  do  not,  in  our 
prayers  or  other  formularies  or  documents,  by  any  means  give  to  it  the 
meaning  which  is  forced  upon  us  by  our  opponents. 

Now,  no  one  of  the  prayers  "asks  salvation"  through  the  merits  of 
the  saints.     Let  us  examine  them. 

"Graciously  receive,  O  Lord,  we  beseech  thee,  our  offerings,  and  grant,  by  the 
merits  of  blessed  Anastasia  the  martyr,  that  they  may  avail  to  our  salvation.    Thro '. ' ' 

The  prayer  is  addressed  to  God,  and  the  grace  is  asked  from  him, 
the  only  fountain  of  mercy:  that  grace  is,  that  the  offerings  (instituted 
by  Jesus  Christ)  may  avail  us  to  salvation,  by  the  merits  of  a  holy  mar- 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  19 

tyr.  The  previous  collect,  page  25,  asked  that  "we  may  be  sensible  of 
the  effects  of  her  prayers  to  thee  in  our  behalf;"  and  this  was  asked 
"through"  the  only  way  in  which  her  prayer  could  avail  or  be  received, 
"Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  who  liveth  and  reigneth  with  thee  in  Unity  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  world  without  end.  Amen."  Those  merits  are,  in 
our  sense  of  the  word,  no  more  than  what  eminent  Protestant  -WTiters, 
as  I  shall  show,  mean  by  a  state  of  righteousness ;  and  the  way  in  which 
we  believe  her  merits  would  be  regarded,  is  found  in  the  meaning  which 
Protestants  attach  to  this  text,  as  read  in  your  version,  James  v.  16. 
"The  effectual  fervent  prayer  of  a  righteous  man  availeth  much."  We 
believe,  that  a  person  who,  through  the  merits  of  Jesus  Christ,  is  jus- 
tified, and  continues  to  serve  God  by  the  practice  of  virtue,  is  thereby 
meritorious  before  God  through  his  mercy  and  the  merits  of  the  Saviour ; 
and  we  believe  that  the  Almighty,  in  regard  to  this  secondary  and  derived 
merit,  which  is  [of]  a  very  dift'erent  kind  from  that  of  our  Saviour,  will 
more  kindly  and  graciously  hear  the  prayer  and  grant  the  request  of 
this  righteous  person,  than  the  prayer  of  a  sinner,  or  of  a  reprobate 
person.  Yet,  still,  to  show  whence  this  merit,  such  as  it  is,  derives  its 
value,  the  prayer  always  concludes  with  the  statement  of  its  foundation 
"Thro.'  "  "our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  liveth  and  reigneth  with  thee 
in  the  Unity  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  world  without  end.  Amen."  Cath- 
olics are  so  well  accustomed  to  hear  these  forms  of  the  conclusion,  that, 
generally,  only  the  word  ' '  Thro. ' '  is  printed,  for  the  sake  of  abbreviation. 

Thus,  Catholics  do  not  pray  to  St.  Anastasia  to  be  saved  by  her 
merits,  in  the  sense  in  which  Protestants  understand  the  phrase;  nor 
do  they  pray  at  all  "to  be  saved"  by  her  merits.  But  they  pray  to  bo 
saved  by  the  institutions  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  and  they  ask  of 
God,  through  the  effectual  fervent  prayer  of  the  righteous  or  meritorious 
martyr,  that  those  institutions  of  Jesus  Christ  might  be  made  of  avail 
to  them,  by  his  bestowing  upon  them  his  grace,  and  creating  in  them  those 
dispositions  without  which  even  the  merits  and  institutions  of  our  only 
Saviour  and  Redeemer  and  Mediator  Christ  Jesus  will  not  save  us. 
Hence,  to  represent  Catholics  as  asking  to  be  saved  by  the  merits  of  the 
saints,  is  doing  them  a  gross  injustice,  and  stating  that  which  is  not 
the  fact. 

In  the  collect  of  St.  Scholastica  and  others,  your  very  generous  and 
honourable  correspondent  stops,  as  usual,  so  as  to  garble  the  prayer.  I 
give  in  italics  what  he  omitted. 

"O  God,  who  to  recommend  us  to  innocence  of  life,  wast  pleased  to  let  the  soul 
of  thy  blessed  Virgin  Scholastica  ascend  to  heaven  in  the  shape  of  a  dove:  grant  by 


20  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

her  merits  and  prayers,  that  ive  may  lead  innocent  lives  here,  and  ascend  to  eternal 
joys  hereafter.     Thro'." 

"O  God,  who  didst  grant  thy  ser\-aiit  John,  being  inflamed  with  the  glare  ©f  thy 
love,  to  walk  without  hurt  through  the  midst  of  flames,  ana  by  him  institute 
a  new  order  in  thy  church:  grant  by  his  merits,  tlmt  the  fire  of  thy  chanty  may  cure 
our  diseased  souls,  and  obtain  for  us  eternal  remedies.     Thro'." 

' '  O  God,  who  wast  pleased  to  send  blessed  Patrick,  thy  bishop  and  confessor, 
to  preach  thy  glory  to  the  Gentiles:  grant,  that  by  his  merits  and  intercession  we 
may,  through  thy  grace,  be  enabled  to  keep  thy  commandments.     Thro'." 

These  prayers  are  all  addressed  to  God,  calling  upon  him  to  save 
us  by  his  mercy;  and  the  meaning  of  the  ynerits  is  the  same  as  that 
above,  in  the  collect  of  St.  Anastasia. 

I  must  return  to  this  topic  in  my  next. 
I  remain,  gentlemen, 
Your  obedient,  humble  servant, 

B.  c. 


LETTER  IV. 

Give  them  a  pilot  to  their  wandering  fleet, 
Bold  in  his  art,  and  tutored  in  deceit; 
Whose  hand  adventurous  shall  their  helm  misguide 
To  hostile  shores,  or  whelm  them  in  the  tide. 

LusiAD,  Transl.,  Book  I. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  June  22,  1829. 

To  the  Editors: 

Gentlemen: — In  my  last  letter  I  stated  that  the  great  difficulty  as 
to  a  proper  understanding  of  the  question  here  at  issue  between  your 
correspondent  with  the  contradictor}'  name,  and  me,  existed  in  the  equiv- 
ocal nature  of  the  word  merit.  No  Roman  Catholic  expects  to  be  saved 
either  by  his  own  merits  or  by  the  merits  of  any  angel  or  of  any  saint ; 
neither  does  he  ask  either  of  them  or  of  God  "to  be  saved  by  their 
merits,"  but  only  by  the  merits  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  prayers  to  which 
reference  has  been  made,  do  ask,  indeed,  of  God,  that  he,  having  regard 
to  the  merits  of  the  saints,  would  be  more  kind  and  merciful  to  us,  and 
grant  to  us  an  increase  of  that  grace,  which  is  altogether  derived  from 
the  merits  and  satisfaction  of  our  Redeemer.  But  we  do  not  give  the 
same  meaning  to  the  phrase  merits  of  Christ,  that  we  do  to  merits  of  the 
blessed  Virgin  Mary,  or  of  any  other  saint.  And  my  present  object  is 
to  exhibit  the  different  senses  in  which  this  word  merit  is  used. 

I  shall  send  to  the  editors  of  the  Miscellany  a  translation  of  such 
of  the  doctrinal  chapters  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  as  may  be  necessary 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  21 

to  exhibit  our  belief  regarding  the  manner  in  which  justification  is 
obtained  by  the  sinner.  This  will  show  to  whom  we  look  for  salvation, 
because  when  we  become  justified,  w'e  are  saved  from  hell,  unless  we 
should  relapse  into  sin;  and  it  wall  be  seen  that  this  justification  is 
derived  solely  and  exclusively  from  the  merits  of  Christ,  and  in  no  way 
from  the  merits  of  angels  or  saints. 

Let  us  now  proceed  to  state  our  doctrine  regarding  merit.  Merit 
is  a  claim  to  a  recompense,  by  reason  of  some  work  which  is  worthy 
thereof.  This  claim  is  of  several  kinds.  I  shall  notice  only  two.  The 
first  is  that  between  equals,  wliere  one  has  done  for  another  a  work 
which  this  latter  needs  or  accepts ;  the  agent  was  free  and  independent, 
under  no  real  or  implied  obligation  to  him  whom  he  served,  but  the 
service  was  done  upon  the  express  or  implied  condition  of  obtaining  a 
just  recompense.  In  this  case  the  agent  has  fully  and  justly  merited, 
and  the  recompense  cannot,  without  palpable  injustice,  be  refused. 
Even  though  there  should  have  been  no  covenant,  yet  if  the  service  was 
necessary,  and  could  not  then  be  done  by  any  other  agent,  there  would 
exist  a  just  ground  of  claim. 

No  created  being  can  stand  in  such  a  relation  as  this  to  God,  because 
all  our  works  are  due  to  him,  by  reason  of  our  creation  and  conservation ; 
we  have  nothing  to  bestow  upon  him  which  he  cannot  justly  claim  by 
several  previous  titles.  Thus,  neither  are  we  independent,  nor  are  we 
exempt  from  his  just  claims.  Hence,  though  the  works  of  creatures 
could  in  their  own  nature  be  of  sufficient  value  to  make  atonement  for 
our  fallen  race,  men  and  angels  united  could  not  ofl:'er  anything  which 
was  truly  their  own  and  free  from  the  claim  of  the  Creator.  Thus,  the 
united  efforts  of  angels  and  saints  could  not,  by  their  merits,  save  one 
sinner.  But  the  works  of  the  incarnate  Son  of  God,  being  free  from 
claim,  and  his  person  independent,  so  too  were  his  acts ;  they  were  also, 
by  reason  of  his  infinite  perfections,  of  infinite  value;  and  by  them 
we  are  freely  and  fully  saved  from  ruin,  and  justified,  when  through 
the  divine  mercy  we  are  made  partakers  thereof. 

When  a  man  is  thus  justified  by  the  application  of  Christ's  merits 
to  his  soul,  we  say  that  he  may  thereafter,  for  the  first  time,  become  mer- 
itorious by  observing  the  law  of  God ;  but  the  nature  of  his  merits  will 
differ  essentially  from  that  of  the  Saviour's  merits.  In  the  first  place, 
the  righteous  or  justified  man  is  acceptable  only  by  reason  of  the  merits 
of  the  Son  of  God:  hence  his  are  not  independent  merits.  Next,  he 
cannot  of  strict  justice  claim  any  recompense,  but  what  is  freely  pro- 
mised by  God ;  thus  his  claim  is  founded  upon  the  merits  of  Christ,  and 
the  covenant  by  which  the  Creator  freely  bound  himself  to  give  a  reward 


22  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

to  those  works,  and  not  upon  any  intrinsic  natural  value  of  his  own 
deeds.  Thus  it  is  clear,  that  when  we  say  persons  in  a  state  of  sanctity 
or  justification  have  merit  for  their  good  works,  we  always  understand 
that  those  works  are  raised  to  this  grade  of  excellence  through  the  free 
mercy  of  God,  and  by  the  free  merits  of  Christ,  and  that  they  create  no 
demand  upon  God,  farther  than  in  virtue  of  his  own  voluntary  covenant. 
That  the  Almighty  could  claim  them  by  several  previous  titles,  but  hav- 
ing mercifully  waived  those  claims,  he  has  promised  us  that  he  would 
give  to  us  a  recompense  or  reward  for  deeds,  to  perform  which  he  even 
now  aids  us  by  the  grace  of  Jesus  Christ,  without  which  we  could  not 
do  those  works  as  we  ought;  and  that  when  he  thus  rewards  the  saints, 
he  by  this  recompense  crowns  his  own  gifts  in  them.  This  is  the  only 
merit  which  Catholics  believe  the  saints  can  have  in  his  sight. 

We  believe  that  all  men  obtain  sufficient  grace,  and  have  free  wilL 
We  know  that  God  promises  a  recompense  to  those  who,  using  that  free- 
dom as  they  ought,  co-operate  with  his  grace.  We  also  know  that  he 
threatens  punishment  to  those  who,  abusing  that  freedom,  and  rejecting 
this  grace,  do  wickedly.  We  therefore  say  that  the  first  persons,  through 
the  grace  of  Jesus  Christ,  merit  heaven,  and  that  the  second,  by  their 
criminality,  merit  hell.  The  first  possess  what  we  call  merit,  properly 
speaking, — the  latter  what  we  call  demerit.  Hence  may  be  clearly  seen 
what  we  mean  by  the  merits  of  the  saints,  and  that  it  is  a  very  different 
sort  from  that  of  the  Saviour.  I  deem  it  unnecessary  to  enter  into  proof 
of  the  positions  which  I  have  here  taken,  as  my  object  is  rather  to  exhibit 
what  our  doctrine  truly  is,  than  to  defend  it, — to  show  that  we  have 
been  misrepresented,  rather  than  to  show  that  we  believe  as  Christ  taught. 

In  order  that  a  man  might  be  capable  of  merit  of  even  this  descrip- 
tion, it  is  required  by  our  tenets  that  the  person  shall  have  been  already 
saved  from  hell,  and  justified  by  the  merits  of  Christ  Jesus. — Amongst 
a  variety  of  scriptural  reasons  for  this  assertion,  perhaps  one  would 
suffice  at  present. 

"Abide  in  me,  and  I  in  you.  As  the  branch  cannot  bear  fruit  of  itself,  except 
it  abide  in  the  vine,  no  more  can  ye  abide  in  me. 

"I  am  the  vine,  ye  are  the  branchces:  He  that  abideth  in  nic,  and  I  in  him,  the 
same  bringeth  forth  much  fruit;  for  without  me  ye  can  do  nothing. ' '      (John  xv.  4,  5). 

To  this  text,  amongst  others,  the  Council  of  Trent  refers  in  its  doc- 
trinal chapter  regarding  merit,  which  I  here  insert.  The  branch  (man) 
really  brings  forth  the  fruit  of  merit,  but  only  because  the  branch  itself 
derives  its  sap,  or  the  virtue,  from  Jesus  Christ,  the  vine,  through  which 
stock  alone  this  virtue  can  be  drawn  from  the  root  of  merciful  atonement. 
The  sinner  who  is  not  justified,  whose  works  are  not  influenced  by  grace^ 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  23 


is  not  grafted  on  this  vine-stock ;  he  can  do  nothing.     Hence  the  council 
teaches  in  the  same  chapter,   (Chap.  xvi.     Sess.  vi)  : 

"Upon  this  ground,  therefore,  whether  they  shall  perpetually  have  preserved 
that  grace  which  they  received,  or  recovered  that  which  they  lost,  the  words  of  the 
Apostle  are  to  be  placed  before  justified  men*    [a].     Abound  in  every  good  work, 
knowing  that  your  labour  is  not  in  vain  in  the.  Lord   [b]  :    for  God  is  not  unjust 
that  he  should  forget  your  work,  and  the  love  which  you  have  shown  in  his  name. 
And,  [c]  Do  not  lose  your  confidence,  which  hath  a  great  reward.     And  therefore,  to 
those  doing  well  [d]  unto  the  end,  and  hoping  in  God,  eternal  life  is  to  be  proposed, 
it  being  as  well,  that  grace  mercifully  promised  through  Christ  Jesus    [e]    to   the 
children  of  God;   as  also,  the  reward  to  be  faithfully  given  as  a  recompense    [f], 
by  reason  of  the  promise  of  God  himself,  to  their  good  works  and  merits.     For  this 
is  that  crown  of  justice  [g]  which  the  Apostle  said  was  laid  up  for  him,  to  be  given 
to  him  by  the  just  judge,  after  his  fight  and  course;  and  not  only  to  him,  but  also 
to  all  that  love  his  coming;   for  since  he,  Christ  Jesus  himself,  as  a  head  into  the 
members,  and  as  a  vine  [h]   into  the  branches,  continually  infuses  virtue  into  those 
justified,    (which   virtue   always   precedes   their    good   works,    and   accompanies   and 
follows  them,  and  without  which  they  could  on  no  account  be  agreeable  to  God  and 
meritorious;)  it  is  to  be  believed  that  nothing  more  is  needful  for  those  justified,  but 
that  they  might  be  considered,  indeed,  by  those  works  which  are  done  in  God,  to  have 
fully  satisfied  the  divine  law   according  to   the  state   of   this  life;   and  have  truly 
merited    (if  indeed   [i]   they  shall  have  departed  in  grace)    to  obtain  eternal  life 
also  in  its  proper  time,  since  Christ  himself  says   [k].   If   any  one  shall  drink   of 
the  water  which  I  will  give  him,  he  shall  not  thirst  for  ever;  but  it  shall  become  in 
him  a  fountain  of  water  springing  up  to  eternal  life.     So  neither   [1]   is  our  own 
proper  justice  established  as  our  own,  proper  from  ourselves,  nor  is  the  justice  of 
God  overlooked   or  rejected:    for   that   righteousness   which   is   called   ours,   because 
we  are  justified  by  its  inhering  in  us,  is  that  same  righteousness  of  God,  because  it 
is  poured  into  us  by  God,  through  the  merit  of  Christ.     Nor  is  that  either  to  be 
omitted,  that  although  in  the  sacred  letters  so  much  is  attributed  to   good  works, 
that  even  Christ  himself   promises    [m]    that   whosoever  will   give   a   drink   of   cold 
water  to  one  of  those  least  ones  will  not  lose  his  reward:  and  the  Apostle  testifies  [n] 
that  what  in  the  present  is  but  for  a  moment  and  light  of  our  tribulation,  worketh 
in  us  above  degree  exceedingly  on  high,  an  eternal  weight  of  glory:  far  be  it  from 
us,  however,  that  a  Christian  man  should  so  confide  [o]  or  glory  in  himself,  and  not 
in  the  Lord  whose  goodness  towards  men  is  so  great,  that  he  wishes  those  things 
which  are  his  gifts  to  be  their  merits.     And  because  [p]  we  all  offend  him,  in  many 
things,  so  each  one  of  us  ought  to  have  severity  and  judgment  before  his  eyes,  as 
he  has  mercy  and   goodness;    nor   ought   any   one   judge   himself    [q]    even   though 
he  should  not  be  conscious  to  himself  of  anything:   for  all  the  life  of  man  is  to  be 
examined  not  only  by  human  judgment,  but  by  that  of  God   [r]  :   who  will  bring 
to   light   the   hidden   things   of   darkness   and   will   make   manifest   the   counsels   of 

The  following  references  show  the  parts  of  Scripture,  according  to  the  Vulgate, 
which  contain  the  doctrine  above  laid  down. 

*  [al  /  Cor.  XV ;  [b]  Heb.  vi;  [c]  Eeb.  x;  [d]  Matt.  x.  and  xxiv;  [e]  Ps.  cu; 
[f]  Eom.  v;  [g]  I  Tim.  iv;  [h]  John  xv;  [i]  Apocal.  xiv;  [k]  John  iv ;  [1]  Bom.  x; 
[m]  Matt.  X,  Marie  ix  and  so  forth;  [n]  /  Cor.  iv;  [o]  /  Cor.  i,  II  Cor.  x  and  so  forth; 
[p]  James  iii;  [q]  I  Cor.  iv;   [r]  I  Cor.  iv;   [s]  Matt,  xvi,  Eom.  ii  and  so  forth. 


24  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

the  hearts;  and  then  shall  every  man  have  praise  from  God:  who  as  it  is  written  will 
render  to  oveiy  man  according  to  his  works." 

What  we  call  the  merits  of  justified  persons,  then  evidently  rest 
upon  the  merits  of  Christ,  as  their  foundation :  first,  because  their  jus- 
tification can  be  had  only  through  his  merits ;  and  secondly,  because  no 
man  can  do  meritorious  works  until  after  he  is  thus  justified,  and  the 
merit  of  those  works  is  derived  from  that  of  the  Saviour,  as  the  fruit 
of  the  branch  is  derived  only  from  that  virtue  or  sap  which  has  been 
drawn  from  the  trunk  of  the  vine.  The  saints  are  those  persons  who  are 
justified  by  the  merits  of  Christ,  and  dying  in  the  state  of  grace,  ai*e 
now  in  heaven,  partakers  of  his  redemption.  As  we  would  expect  aid, 
and  ask  it  through  the  prayers  of  a  justified  person  on  earth,  we  also 
expect  it  from  their  prayers,  now  that  they  are  in  heaven :  and  as  to 
hope  for  efficacy  from  the  prayers  of  a  just  man  upon  earth,  because 
of  his  being  meritorious  or  righteous  in  the  sight  of  God  would  not  be 
asking  that  man  to  save  us  by  his  merits,  so  confidence  that  God  will 
have  favourable  regard  to  the  merits  or  righteousness  of  these  heavenly 
supplicants,  is  not  asking  those  saints  to  save  us  by  their  merits;  and 
the  merits  of  these  saints,  who  have  no  virtue  or  power  or  merit  but  what 
has  been  obtained  from  the  mercy  of  God  through  the  original  and  inde- 
pendent merits  of  Jesus  Christ,  are  of  a  nature  far  different  from,  and 
infinitely  below  the  merits  of  our  Redeemer. 

In  the  twenty-fourth  session,  the  council  published  a  decree  con- 
cerning the  invocation  of  saints,  in  which  it  desires  the  faithful  to  be 
taught,  according  to  the  usage  received  from  the  earliest  days  of  the 
Church. 

"That  the  saints  reigning  with  Christ  do  offer  their  prayers  to  God  for  man: 
that  it  is  good  and  useful  to  invoke  them  by  way  of  supplication :  that  it  is  good  and 
useful  to  have  recourse  to  their  prayers,  help,  and  aid,  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining 
benefits  from  God,  through  his  son  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  who  is  our  only  Redeemer 
and  Saviour. ' ' 

The  decree  charges  the  bishops  farther,  to  use  their  utmost  diligence 
and  best  exertions  to  prevent  any  abuse  or  superstition  or  other  impro- 
priety in  this  practice.  It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  Roman  Catholics, 
though  they  do  pray  to  the  saints  to  aid  them  by  their  prayers  to  God, 
and  do  ask  for  their  help  to  obtain  benefits  from  God  through  the  merits 
of  Jesus  Christ  their  only  Saviour  and  Redeemer,  do  not  pray  to  the 
saints  to  save  them  by  their  merits. 

In  the  twenty-second  session,  chapter  iii.,  the  council  teaches — 
"That    although    the    church    hath    been    sometimes    accustomed    to    celebrate 
some  masses  to  the  honour  and  memory  of  the  saints,  yet  she  does  not  teach  that 
sacrifice  ought  to  be  offered  to  them,  but  to  God  only,  who  hath  crowned  them,  whence 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  25 

the  priest  is  not  used  to  say,  I  offer  sacrifice  to  thee,  Peter,  or  Paul;  but  giving 
thanks  to  God  for  their  victories,  he  implores  their  patronage;  that  they  whose 
memory  we  celebrate  on  earth,  may  intercede  for  us  in  heaven. 

If  you,  gentlemen,  will  compare  these  testimonies  of  our  doctrine, 
drawn  from  our  highest  and  [most]  undeniable  authority,  with  the 
production  of  your  extraordinary  correspondent,  bearing  the  curious 
name,  you  must  at  once  perceive  how  grossly  he  has  misrepresented  our 
tenets,  and  you  cannot  avoid  seeing  the  dishonest  garbling  and  miscon- 
struction of  our  prayers,  of  which  he  has  been  guilty  in  his  paragraph 
No.  20.     I  could  adduce  much  more  evidence,  but  where  is  the  necessity  ? 

I  now  state  that  it  is  a  misrepresentation  of  our  doctrine  and  prac- 
tice to  state,  as  your  "Protestant  Catholic"  correspondent  does,  first, 
That  we  pray  to  angels  to  save  us  by  their  merits;  and  secondly.  That 
we  pray  to  saints  to  save  us  by  their  merits,  so  as  to  make  those  saints 
mediatoi-s  with  Christ  or  in  his  stead ;  and,  thirdly.  That  we  give  to  crea- 
tures the  worship  due  to  God  alone;  and,  fourthly,  That  we  are  thus 
guilty  of  idolatry. 

But  since  the  chief  topic  which  is  relied  upon  as  the  basis  for  charg- 
ing us  with  error,  is  our  assertion  that  a  man  who  is  justified  by  Christ 
upon  repentance  can  afterwards  do  anything  for  which  he  may  have 
merit,  I  shall  adduce  the  testimony  of  an  eminent  prelate  of  the  English 
Protestant  Church,  in  support  of  the  correctness  of  our  doctrine  on  this 
head.  I  could  produce  several,  but  I  shall  confine  myself  to  one,  and 
he  was  no  great  admirer  of  Roman  Catholics,  as  two  or  three  extracts 
from  his  writings  will  show. 

"The  wonder  is  not  that  the  professed  members  of  the  Church  of  Eome  unite 
their  hearts  and  hands,  and  leave  no  methods,  whether  of  deceit  or  violence,  unat- 
tempted  for  the  service  of  that  cause,  which  in  all  their  lowest  fortunes,  they  never 
suffer  to  be  removed  out  of  their  sight;  that  they  put  on  all  forms  of  complaisance 
and  dissimulation;  of  civility  and  good  humour,  even  to  heretics  themselves,  to 
inveigle  them  into  their  own  ruin;  that  they  flatter,  and  promise,  and  swear  every- 
thing that  is  good  and  kind  to  their  fellow-labourers,  and  at  the  same  time  enter 
into  all  the  resolutions  of  destruction  and  desolation,  whenever  an  opportunity  of 
power  shall  come.  This  is  nothing  but  what  is  worthy  of  themselves,  and  of  that 
church  to  the  slavery  of  which  they  have  devoted  themselves.  It  is  no  more  than 
what  they  openly  and  publicly  profess;  if  Protestants  will  but  open  their  eyes  and 
see  it.  It  is  their  religion  and  their  conscience:  it  is  inculcated  upon  them  as  the 
great  condition  of  their  acceptance  with  God,  that  no  good  nature  of  their  own; 
no  obligations  from  others;  no  ties  of  oaths,  and  solemn  assurances;  no  regard  to 
truth,  justice,  or  honour;  are  to  restrain  them  from  anything,  let  it  be  of  what  sort 
soever;  that  is  for  the  security  or  temporal  advancement  of  their  church." 

Such,  gentlemen,  is  the  calumny  published  in  a  sermon!  by  that 
great  friend  of  civil  and  religious  liberty ! ! !  the  Right  Reverend  father 
in  God,  Benjamin  Hoadley,  D.D.,  successively  Bishop  of  Bangor,  Here- 


26  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

ford,  Salisbury,  and  Winchester.  Yea,  of  a  truth,  he  loved  not  Popery ! 
The  above  is  taken  from  a  sermon  preached  at  St.  Peter's  Poor,  Novem- 
ber 5th,  (Cecil's  holiday,)  1715,  from  the  text,  "And  for  this  cause, 
God  shall  send  them  a  strong  delusion,  that  they  shall  believe  a  lie," 
(//  Thess.  ii.  11),  entitled,  "The  present  Delusion  of  many  Protestants 
considered." — pages  623,  and  so  forth,  volume  iii.  of  his  works,  edit. 
London,  MDCCLXXIII.  I  shall  give  but  one  other  extract  from  the 
same  sermon,  though  I  could  give  a  great  number  from  the  various  parts 
of  the  works  of  this  liberal  and  enlightened  prelate,  as  he  is  styled  in 
contradistinction  to  several  of  his  fellows  who  were  indeed  more  viru- 
lent, and  compared  with  whom,  he  might  be  called  liberal  and  benevolent. 
' '  But  in  the  Eomish  Church,  it  is  firmly  settled  upon  never  altered  principles ; 
it  is  an  established  article  of  religion;  equally  believed,  and  owned,  and  inculcated 
in  their  adversity  and  low  estate,  as  in  the  hight  of  their  power.  It  stands  unrepealed 
upon  record,  and  it  is  confirmed  by  experience,  that  they  are  most  likely  not  to  fail 
of  the  honours  of  saintship,  and  the  applauses  of  that  church,  who  act  the  most 
uniformly,  and  the  most  steadily  upon  that  foundation.  Every  weapon  they  use  is 
sanctified;  every  instance  of  fraud  and  perfidiousness;  every  degree  of  violence  and 
fury,  is  consecrated.  It  is  not  only  allowed,  but  first  recommended,  and  afterwards 
rewarded. ' ' 

No  wonder  that  persons  who  derive  their  notions  of  Roman  Catholics 
and  of  their  religion  from  such  sources  as  this,  should  be  tempted  to 
thank  God  that  they  are  not  like  the  worse  than  publicans  described 
by  these  holy  men!  We  cannot  be  astonished  than  in  an  old  British 
colony,  looking  to  Britain  for  her  literature  and  her  religion,  and  whose 
children  were  taught,  for  British  political  reasons,  to  despise  a  church 
which  she  had  always  theretofore  persecuted,  much  of  such  information 
as  that  above  should  be  instilled  into  the  mind !  Nor  can  we  expect  that 
in  one  generation  it  could  be  obliterated !  Thus,  gentlemen,  though  your 
curious  correspondent  has  fallen  into  extravagant  mistakes,  I  am  far 
from  attributing  his  misrepresentations  to  any  personal  malevolence.  I 
would  merely  suggest,  for  the  consideration  of  some  of  those  who  appear 
desirous  to  charge  us  with  those  characteristics,  the  light  in  which  all 
well-informed  men  at  present  view  what  this  liberal  father  in  God  wrote 
about  a  century  ago.  In  less  than  half  that  time,  our  successors  will 
scarcely  believe  that  at  the  present  day  Americans  would  be  found  capa- 
ble of  exhibiting  themselves  as  our  assailants  do. 

But  it  is  time  to  leave  this  digression  and  to  see  what  this  prelate 
of  the  Protestant  Church  teaches,  regarding  the  merits  of  Christian 
men's  works.  In  his  Sermon  xii..  Of  relying  upon  the  merits  of  Christ 
for  salvation,  page  570,  volume  iii.',  he  gives  as  the  doctrine  of  the  Eng- 
lish Protestant  Church, — 


two        DEFENCE    OF   PRECEDING    SECTION  27 


' '  That  there  can  be  uo  pardon,  nor  salvation,  demanded  or  hoped  for,  but  by 
such  as  forsake  their  sins,  and  obey  the  moral  laws  of  the  Gospel:  and  in  other 
words  that  the  sufferings  of  Christ  have  actually  procured  these  conditions  to  be 
granted  by  Almighty  God;  so  that  those  sinners  who  have  forsaken  their  sins  and 
entered  upon  a  new  course  of  action,  may  obtain  justification  from  the  guilt  of  their 
former  sins,  and  eternal  happiness  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 

After  having  at  some  length  sustained  this  position,  which  requires 
the  co-operation  of  man  with  God's  grace,  he  proceeds  to  combat  an 
error  which  he  thus  describes : 

"It  is  manifest  that  there  have  been,  especially  in  these  latter  ages,  and  still 
are,  (in  a  very  vicious  generation  of  men,)  multitudes  of  Christians,  who  were  not 
content  with  this,  that  God  should  pardon  the  sins  which  they  have  forsaken  for  the 
sake  of  the  merits  of  Christ:  but  profess  to  believe  that  he  will  pardon  all  the  sins 
which  they  can  possibly  continue  in,  till  death  overtakes  them;  if  so  be,  they  can 
but  have  time  to  declare  their  trust  in  Christ's  merits  to  this  purpose;  or,  in  the 
usual  promises  of  God  made  to  Christians  for  the  sake  of  his  son  Jesus  Christ. 
They  seem  to  think  that  Christ's  merit  excuseth  them  from  attempting  to  have  any 
merit  in  themselves;  nay,  that  it  would  derogate  from,  and  disparage  his  merits, 
if  they  should  pretend  to  have  anything  in  themselves  so  much  as  agreeable  to  the 
will  of  God;  that  it  would  be  a  piece  of  unpardonable  presumption  in  them,  to 
pretend  to  imitate  the  moral  perfections  of  God,  though  they  are  called  upon  to  be 
holy,  as  He  is  holy." 

Thus,  according  to  Bishop  Hoadley,  the  Protestant  Church  of  Eng- 
land does  not  teach  that  it  is  a  derogation  from  the  merits  of  Christ,  for 
a  man  who  has  repented  and  been  justified  through  those  merits,  to  strive 
by  the  co-operation  with  God's  grace  to  have  the  merit  of  being  holy; 
by  endeavouring  to  imitate  the  moral  perfections  of  God,  though  imper- 
fectly and  at  a  great  distance.  But  in  his  next  sermon  (xiii.  576),  Mis- 
takes about  mail's  mahility,  and  God's  grace  considered,  he  is  more 
explicit.  He  undertakes  to  examine  and  confute  pernicious  mistakes. 
* '  The  mistakes  at  which  I  now  particularly  point,  are  such  as  are  founded 
upon  a  very  fatal  notion  of  the  weakness  and  inability  of  men;  and  of 
the  part  which  Almighty  God  is  to  act  in  the  business  of  reformation 
and  holiness."  Commenting  on  his  text,  Not  that  we  are  sufficient  of 
ourselves  to  think  anything  as  of  ourselves;  but  our  sufSciency  is  of 
God,   (7/  Cor.  iii.  5),  he  writes: 

"St.  Paul  himself  builds  no  such  doctrine  upon  that  great  and  strong  notion 
which  he  had  of  his  own  insufficiency:  and  of  the  sufficiency  of  God.  This  insuffi- 
ciency, I  have  shown,  already  had  reference  to  the  work  of  his  Apostleship;  and  to 
his  successful  performance  of  it,  and  so  forth.  .  .  He  doth  not  presently  infer, 
that  nothing  was  to  be  done  by  himself,  considered  as  distinct  from  his  great  patron. 
But  in  this  very  Epistle,  he  represents  himself  and  the  other  Apostles  as  workers 
together  with  God  (chap.  vi.  1)  ;  and  often  speaks  of  his  indefatigable  endeavors 
to  answer  the  ends  of  his  office.  And  if  he  were  a  worker  together  with  God,  he  cer- 
tainly had  a  part  of  his  owti  distinct  from  that  of  Almighty  God,  in  this  great  affair. 


28  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

And  consequently,  as  he  had  God  Almighty's  sufficiency  to  support  him,  and  make  up 
his  deficiencies;  so  he  had  likewise  some  strength  and  ability  of  his  own  for  his 
own  part.  And  as  God  was  the  architect,  the  chief  builder,  director,  and  encourager 
of  the  whole,  so  likewise  was  the  Apostle,  a  worker,  under  and  together  with  him." 

In  his  Sermon  xiv,  he  answers  an  objection  that  it  would  be  strip- 
ping God  of  his  honour  and  glory  to  attribute  to  man  any  share  in  his 
amendment,  reformation,  and  salvation. 

In  his  Sermon  xix.,  page  827,  The  best  Christians  unprofitable  ser- 
vants, he  misrepresents  the  doctrine  of  Roman  Catholics,  by  stating 
it  to  be  that  which  it  is  not.  But  w'e  shall  see  what  he  lays  down  as  the 
doctrine  of  the  English  Protestant  Church.  lie  explains  the  text  Luke 
xviii.  10,  "So  likewise  when  ye  shall  have  done  all  those  things  which 
are  commanded  you,  say,  We  are  unprofitable  servants,  we  have  done 
that  which  was  our  duty  to  do,  to  mean,"  "Where  you  have  done  your 
duty  to  God,  and  performed  the  services  He  has  commanded,  you  can- 
not claim  the  happiness,  as  a  reward  due  in  justice  to  your  services, 
which  God  will  in  mercy  give  you."  Such  too  is  our  explanation,  as 
has  been  seen  above. 

When  in  the  course  of  the  sermon  he  proceeds  to  examine  what  is 
meant  by  the  word  unprofitable,  he  justly  observes, — 

"Wo  must  not  imagine  that  our  Lord  declares,  or  insinuates  that  the  beat 
Christians,  and  such  as  have  exercised  themselves  in  all  the  good  works  of  his  holy 
religion,  ought  to  acknowledge  themselves  to  have  done  nothing  in  what  is  called 
the  service  of  God,  or  for  the  good  of  mankind;  or  of  any  significancy  for  their  own 
salvation ;  or  that  anything  like  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  words  unprofitable  servants. 
Far  be  such  thoughts  from  us,  concerning  him,  who  in  another  parable  represents 
himself  or  his  Father  as  speaking  to  every  Christian  of  this  sort.  Well  done,  good 
and  faithful  servant;  enter  into  the  joy  of  thy  Lord."     (Matt.  xxv.  20,  23). 

He  then  proceeds  to  show  that  he  is  not  the  unprofitable  servant 
mentioned  in  verse  30  of  the  same  chapter,  who  is  wicked  and  slothful, 
and  punished.  But  he  is  unprofitable,  because  he  cannot  increase  the 
happiness  of  God;  because  of  his  many  lesser  faults  and  failings;  be- 
cause of  the  imperfections  of  his  best  actions.  Again,  because  the  capa- 
city being  derived  from  God,  they  are  unprofitable  in  themselves  and 
their  own  merits,  and  what  good  they  do  as  Clu'istians  is  derived  from 
God's  mercy  and  the  grace  of  Christ.  In  all  this  he  does  not  contradict 
our  doctrine.  But  we  now  approach  to  a  new  point  in  which  he  still 
farther  upholds  us. 

"I  will  now  add  an  observation  or  two,  not  foreign  to  what  I  have  been  saying; 
and  so  conclude. 

' '  1.  The  subject  we  have  been  treating  may  naturally  lead  us  to  a  question 
which  has  been  sometimes  asked  by  those  who,  I  fear,  are  much  more  willing  to  know 
what  is  not  their  strict  duty,  than  to  practise  what  they  know  to  be  so:  and  that  is, 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  29 

whether  any  Christian  can  do  more  than  he  is  commanded,  or,  than  it  is  his  strict  duty, 
to  do? 

' '  To  this,  I  think,  it  may  be  answered,  that  no  Christian  can  possibly  do  more, 
in  the  great  points  of  moral  duty,  rightly  understood,  which  are  the  good  works 
required  in  the  Gospel,  than  he  is  strictly  obliged  to  do;  because  these  points  are 
always  indispensably  necessary,  and  the  obligation  to  duties  never  released  or  abated: 
But  that,  in  other  points,  and  these  not  displeasing  to  God,  which  may  be  said  to 
belong  to  his  religious  service,  as  circumstances  of  it,  a  Christian  may  do  more  than 
what  is  strictly  enjoined,  as  absolutely  necessary  to  his  salvation. 

"This  may  be  the  better  understood  from  what  St.  Paul  says  of  himself;  viz., 
that  he  chose  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  the  Corinthians  without  any  charge  to  them, 
in  order  to  have  a  greater  influence  in  the  exercise  of  his  office  amongst  them;  and 
that  this  was  more  than  he  was  strictly  obliged  to  do.  For  it  is-  plain  that  he  (as 
well  as  others)  was  obliged  to  do  whatever  he  apprehended  to  be  most  for  the 
honour  of  God,  and  the  interest  of  his  Gospel.  And  yet  it  is  also  as  plain,  from 
his  own  words,  that,  had  he  taken  a  maintenance  of  them,  he  could  have  justified 
himself  before  God;  and  had  ground  for  boasting,  that  he  did  not.  He  expressly 
distinguishes  between  his  strict  obligation  to  preach  the  Gospel,  and  the  circumstance 
of  preaching  it  without  charge  to  them.  "Wo  to  me  if  I  preach  not  the  Gospel.  This 
is  my  indispensable  duty.  But  whether  I  shall  take  a  maintenance  for  doing  this 
or  not,  this  is  left  free  for  me,  and  I  have  chosen  not  to  do  it:  this  is  the  ground 
of  my  boasting.      (7  Cor.  ix.   16,   19). 

"I  might  mention  also  what  is  written  of  the  first  believers,  that  those  amongst 
them  who  had  possessions,  sold  them,  and  laid  the  price  at  the  feet  of  the  Apostles, 
to  be  distributed,  in  common,  to  all  who  wanted.  It  is  evident,  of  these  persons, 
that  they  were  strictly  obliged  to  the  duty  of  charity  to  their  brethren  in  want:  and 
yet,  it  is  also  plain  that  this  particular  behaviour  of  those  who  voluntarily  and 
honestly  performed  the  service,  in  so  extraordinary  a  manner,  was  more  than  was 
commanded  them  by  their  great  Master.  Nay,  it  is  declared  by  St.  Peter,  (Acts 
V.  4),  that  it  was  not  their  strict  duty,  but  a  matter  left  to  their  own  choice.  From 
■whence  it  appears,  that,  in  this,  they  did  more  than  it  was  their  strict  duty  to  do. ' ' 

It  is  true  that  after  this  passage  he  lashes  most  soundly  what  he  is 
pleased  to  call  the  Romish  Doctrine,  but  the  doctrine  which  he  lashes,  is 
not,  and  never  was  that  of  our  Church.  I  will  then  state  that  according 
to  an  eminent  bishop  of  the  English  Protestant  Church,  it  is  not  incom- 
patible with  her  doctrine,  to  hold,  and  the  Scripture  teaches,  that  men 
justified  through  the  mercy  of  God,  the  merits  of  Clirist,  and  sincere 
repentance,  can  work  with  God  by  the  grace  of  Christ,  and  thus  do  good 
works,  which  have,  through  God's  mercy  and  covenant,  a  claim  for  re- 
ward, and  are  meritorious:  and  that  they  not  only  can  do  what  they 
are  commanded,  and  is  their  strict  duty  as  absolutely  necessary  to  their 
salvation,  but  can  also  in  addition  to  this,  do  more  than  what  they  are 
so  commanded,  more  than  is  their  strict  duty  to  insure  salvation,  and  yet 
in  all  this  do  not  derogate  from  the  merits  of  Christ.  Now  if  the  per- 
sons whom  we  look  upon  to  be  saints  have  done  this,  as  Bishop  Iloadley 
says  one  of  them  (St.  Paul)  undoubtedly  did,  one  of  two  consequences 


30  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

must  ensue;  Bishop  Hoadley  misrepresents  the  doctrines  of  the  Church 
of  England,  or  no  person  in  her  communion  can  object  to  our  doctrine 
on  those  points. 

In  my  next  I  shall  apply  what  I  have  been  hitherto  collecting  and 
explaining. 

I  remain,  gentlemen, 

Your  obedient  humble  servant, 

B.    C. 

LETTER  V. 

But,  mortals!   know,    'tis  still  our  greatest  pride  ♦ 

To  blaze  those  virtues,  which  the  good  would  hide. 

Eise,   Muses,   rise!    add  to   your   tuneful  breath, 

These  must  not  sleep  in  darkness  and  in  death. 

She  said:   in  air  the  trembling  music  floats, 

And  on  the  winds  triumphant  swell  the  notes; 

So  soft,  tho'  high,  so  loud,  and  yet  so  clear, 

Ev'n  list'ning  angels  lean   from  heaven   to  hear: 

To   furthest   shores   th'    ambrosial    spirit    flies, 

Sweet  to   the  world,   and   grateful   to   the   skies. 

Pope,  Temple  of  Fame. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  June  29,  1829. 
To  the  Editors: 

Gentlemen : — I  have  now  exhibited  to  you,  reasons  which  justify  my 
asserting  that  Roman  Catholics  do  not  pray  to  angels  to  be  saved  by 
their  merits ;  that  they  do  not  pray  to  angels  in  the  same  manner  that 
they  pray  to  God  the  creator  of  angels ;  but  in  the  manner,  upon  the 
same  principle  and  for  the  same  purpose  that  good  Protestants  beseech 
their  fellow- worshippers  on  earth,  to  pray  to  God  for  them,  and  help 
them  by  their  intercession ;  and  therefore  Roman  Catholics  do  not  give 
to  those  creatures  the  worship  which  is  due  to  God  alone,  nor  are  they 
as  regards  angels  guilty  of  either  direct  or  indirect  idolatry.  And 
further,  that  when  Roman  Catholics  look  upon  Christ  as  their  mediator, 
they  consider  his  mediation  to  be  more  than  a  mere  intercession;  they 
look  upon  it  to  be  a  full  and  perfect  atonement  in  which  he  by  his  own 
unclaimable  and  infinite  merits  and  bitter  sufferings  made  abundant  sat- 
isfaction for  their  sins,  for  which  no  created  merits  or  power  could 
satisfy:  that  they  do  not  consider  that  angels  could  or  did  become  aton- 
ing mediators  for  man ;  and  hence  that  although  angels  might,  and  can, 
and  do,  intercede  or  pray  for  us,  they  are  not  mediators  of  satisfaction 
or  atonement,  either  with  Christ  or  in  his  stead.     Hence  that  asking 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  31 

the  intercession  of  angels  is  not  dishonouring  the  mediation  of  Christ. 
All  that  I  have  written  of  angels  is  equally  applicable  to  saints,  but 
that  in  regard  to  the  latter,  we  pray  to  God  that  he  would  regard  their 
merits  as  intercessors.  Upon  this,  however,  no  difficulty  can  exist  in 
any  honest  mind  that  calmly  and  dispassionately  views  without  preju- 
dice what  we  mean  by  the  word  merit  as  applied  to  the  saints,  who  have 
been  human  beings,  justified  through  Christ,  and  were  subsequently 
removed  to  glory  in  heaven.  It  is  evidently  but  an  appeal  to  God,  to 
act  upon  his  own  well-known  and  clearly  revealed  principles,  that  he 
would  yield  mercy  upon  the  entreaty  of  those  his  righteous  servants, 
through  the  merits  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  our  only  atoning  and  re- 
deeming mediator.  It  is  then  clear  that  we  are  misrepresented  by  those 
who  say,  that  we  pray  to  saints  to  save  us  by  their  merits:  for  we  ask 
to  be  saved  only  through  the  merits  of  Christ,  through  whom  alone 
salvation  comes,  and  we  therefore  acknowledge  with  St.  Peter,  ^^  that 
there  is  no  other  name,  save  that  of  Jesus,  given  under  heaven  whereby 
w^e  may  be  saved.  We  are  misrepresented  by  those  who  say  that  we 
make  the  saints  mediators  with  Christ,  or  in  his  stead ;  because  we  pro- 
fess and  testify,  that  though  they  are  intercessors  who  pray  for  us,  they 
are  not  mediators  by  whom  we  are  redeemed;  and  we  proclaim  with  St. 
Paul,  ^^  that  as  there  is  but  one  God,  there  is  but  one  mediator  between 
God  and  man;  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  who  gave  himself  a  ransom  for 
all.  We  are  far  from  saying  that  any  saint  gave  himself  as  a  ransom 
for  us;  though  in  virtue  of  the  ransom  paid  by  Christ  Jesus  for  this 
saint,  and  the  fidelity  of  that  ransomed  saint  to  divine  grace,  his  inter- 
cession might  prevail  much,  and  if  so,  he  is  acceptable  through  Christ, 
and  therefore,  instead  of  dishonouring  Christ,  we  honour  him  by  show- 
ing the  powerful  effects  of  his  atonement  and  ransom  in  this  creature 
who  was  once  a  frail  mortal.  Hence,  to  charge  us  with  idolatry  in  this, 
is  to  charge  that  the  honour,  which  we  give  to  those  saints,  is  the  honour 
due  to  Christ.  Surely,  we  do  not  deny  to  Christ  the  glory  of  being  the 
ransom,  and  the  only  ransom  for  our  sins,  yet  we  deny  this  glory  to  the 
saints  and  angels.  We  do  not  say  that  the  merits  of  Christ  are  valuable, 
only  in  as  much  as  they  are  derived  from  the  superior  merits  of  saints ; 
yet  we  say  the  merits  of  saints  are  only  valuable  as  dra-wTi  from  the  unde- 
rived,  original,  and  superior  merits  of  Christ  Jesus.  Gentlemen, — I  ask 
in  sober  sadness, — is  it  possible  that  you  can  find  any  human  being  who 
with  this  fair  view  of  our  tenets  before  him,  will  say  that  the  woi-ship 
which  we  pay  to  our  Saviour  the  incarnate  God,  is  only  that  same  which 


"^Acts  iv.  12. 
«« I  Tim.  ii.  5,  6. 


32  DOC  T  R  I  N  E  Vol. 

Ave  pay  to  the  blessed  spirits?  Yet  such  is  the  assertion  of  your  extra- 
ordinary correspondent ! !  But  how  wretched  is  his  attempt  in  para- 
graph 8. 

"It  is  then  a  fact,,  that  'the  Roman  Catholics  do  pray  to  angels  and  saints, 
to  save  them  by  their  merits, '  making  those  angels  and  saints  mediators  with  Christ, 
or  in  his  stead.  It  is  not  unreasonable  or  unfair,  to  presume  the  saint  to  be  even 
substituted  as  mediator  for  Christ,  where,  as  is  sometimes  the  case,  the  collect 
does  not  name  Christ,  or  contain  or  end  with  any  reference  to  him  in  the  character 
of  intercessor." 

Let  him  produce  the  collect  which  omits  to  exhibit  Christ  as  medi- 
ator. There  might  be  several  where  he  is  not  exhibited  as  an  interces- 
sor. Upon  an  assertion  which  he  makes  without  evidence,  and  against 
evidence,  he  builds  his  conclusion  "it  is  not  unreasonable  or  unfair,  to 
presume,  the  saint  to  be  even  substituted  as  mediator  for  Christ. ' '  In- 
deed, indeed  he  has  been  too  presumptuous,  and  too  unreasonable,  and 
altogether  dishonest  and  imfair. 

His  ninth  paragraph  confounds  two  distinct  things,  mediation  and 
intercession,  and  by  this  sophistry  he  endeavours  to  force  a  conclusion 
against  the  lawfulness  of  any  other  intercession,  save  that  of  Christ, 
upon  the  principle  that  St.  Paul,  (/  Tim.  ii.  5),  asserted  that  there  is 
but  one  mediator.  But  whoever  will  look  to  the  text  will  find  that  the 
word  used  by  St.  Paul  does  not  mean  intercessor,  but  ■mediator  of  raii- 
som.  This  is  what  logicians  call  "a  syllogism  with  four  terms,"  one 
of  the  worst  and  most  deceitful  attempts  to  mislead. 

Another  attempt  is  made  in  the  same  paragraph  to  combine  for  one 
conclusion  two  texts  which  relate  to  things  not  of  the  same  kind;  that 
from  the  gospel  of  St.  John  exhibits  the  Saviour,  telling  his  disciples  to 
pray  to  the  Father  in  his  name,  or  by  his  merits,  for  hitherto  they  had 
not  prayed  in  this  manner,  {John  xv.  24),  and  they  also  were  accus- 
tomed rather  to  request  of  him  to  ask  on  their  behalf,  {John  xv.  26), 
and  now  he  desired  that  they  might  pray  themselves,  to  the  father,  yet 
in  his  name.  Thus  the  passages  here  merely  regard  prayer.  The  text 
from  Acts  iv.  12,  it  will  be  seen,  by  no  means  teaches  that  we  ought  not 
to  ask  of  others  to  intercede  for  us,  or  to  praj'  with  us,  but  merely  and 
exclusively  shows  that  this  Jesus  who  was  crucified,  was  the  Messias,  in 
whom  all  should  believe,  and  through  whom  only  salvation  was  to  be 
obtained.  Let  us  see  the  argument  which  the  two  texts  will  obviously 
make.  "Jesus  Christ  tells  the  Apostles  to  pray  in  his  name."  "St. 
Peter  tells  us  that  there  is  only  the  name  of  Jesus  in  which  salvation 
can  be  had."  My  inference  from  these  two  propositions  will  not  go 
beyond  this:  "therefore,  it  is  useful  to  pray  in  the  name  of  Christ;  and 
it  is  unprofitable,  or  perhaps,  unlawful,  to  seek  salvation  through  any 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  33 

other  name."  In  fact  it  is  but  repeating  the  propositions  of  the  texts 
in  other  words, — and  the  substance  will  be  no  more  than  what  has  been 
repeated,  "Christ  is  our  only  saviour."  But  it  says  not  "our  only 
intercessor."  Should  we  confine  intercession  to  our  Saviour,  every  per- 
son who  asks  any  other  to  pray  for  him,  dishonours  Christ.  This,  gen- 
tlemen, would  produce  bad  times  for  the  clergy,  whose  intercession  is  so 
frequently  besought. 

We  next  come  to  his  statements  regarding  the  blessed  Virgin, — and 
here  the  poor  gentleman  is  really  to  be  pitied,  for  he  is  in  pain,  (par. 
11),  and  the  contemplation  of  the  proof  which  he  has  at  hand  to  fix 
upon  us  the  crime  of  downright  idolatry,  is  so  trying  to  his  nerves  that 
he  only  adduces  a  little,  but  that  "little  will  suffice."  Let  us  see  his 
proofs.  They  are  drawn  from  three  sources.  The  first  is  the  Laity's 
Directory,  for  1822,  New  York,  W.  H.  Creagh,  Puhlisher.  Suppose  this 
book  contained  blasphemy,  is  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  chargeable 
therewith?  A  church  is  accountable  for  her  liturgy,  and  therefore  it 
was  fair  and  lawful  to  charge  us  as  a  body,  with  the  prayers  and  pas- 
sages of  the  Missal;  a  church  is  justly  chargeable  with  the  declarations 
of  doctrine  which  her  prelates  publish  in  her  name,  or  as  expositions  of 
her  tenets,  provided  those  publications  are  generally  known  and  received 
and  not  contradicted :  and  therefore  the  Catechisms  and  other  such  expo- 
sions  put  forth  by  our  bishops  are  justly  quoted  for  or  against  us.  But' 
it  is  quite  a  novelty  in  a  religious  disquisition  to  quote  an  obscure, 
unauthorized,  ephemeral  compilation,  printed  merely  for  his  own  gain, 
by  a  man  who,  if  he  had  any  religion,  was  a  member  of  the  Church  of 
England;  in  order  to  prove  that  Roman  Catholics  hold  tenets 
which  cannot  be  deduced  from  their  works  of  authority.  The  name 
of  a  very  respectable  priest  in  New  York  appears  on  its  title- 
page,  as  if  the  book  was  revised  and  corrected  by  him :  but  even  high 
as  is  the  station  of  that  esteemed  priest,  still  the  church  is  not  accountable 
for  his  publications.  The  work  itself  is,  1st,  a  calendar,  2d,  a  sermon, 
3d,  practical  instructions  for  the  Sundays,  feasts,  and  so  forth,  of  the 
year,  and  4th,  an  account  of  the  Catholic  churches  and  other  institutions 
of  the  United  States.  The  following  notice  with  which  it  opens  will 
show  that  it  was  not  sent  forth  either  by  authority  or  as  perfect. 

"Notice. — The  Laity's  Directory  is  published  this  year  for  the  first  time  in 
the  United  States  of  America.  It  is  intended  to  accompany  the  Missal,  with  a  view 
to  facilitate  the  use  of  the  same.  Considerable  pains  have  accordingly  been  taken 
to  render  it  correct,  as  well  in  the  Calendar,  as  in  the  general  information  it  contains. 
The  errors,  it  is  hoped,  are  not  many :  such  however  as  may  exist  of  the  kind,  the 
spirit  that  reigns  throughout  this  little  work  will  suffice  to  show  and  to  satisfy  the 
Catholic  public  they  have  not  been  intentional." 


34  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

The  Directory  was  never  republished. — Yet  here  is  a  writer  who  has 
before  him,  according  to  his  own  account,  the  authorized  works,  and 
still  proceeds  to  build  up  his  charge  against  the  Catholic  Church,  upon 
a  mere  evanescent,  unauthorized  calendar!!  I  object  to  the  principle 
of  admitting  such  documents  as  evidence  in  a  case  of  this  description. 
Yet  I  shall  now  take  up  his  facts,  from  this  document,  which  your  cor- 
respondent garbles,  as  usual. 

His  object  is  to  show  that  this  pamphlet  calls  upon  Catholics  to 
commit  downright  idolatry,  in  their  worship  of  the  blessed  Virgin.  I 
forget  if  I  ever  yet  saw  a  Protestant's  definition  of  idolatry.  I  shall 
therefore  set  down  the  Catholic  definition.  Giving  to  any  creature  the 
worship  due  only  to  God.  Now  to  prove  that  this  document  calls  for 
idolatry,  it  must  be  shown  that  it  calls  for  that  worship  that  is  due  only 
to  God,  to  be  given  to  Mary.  If  the  book  calls  for  any  such  worship 
I  shall  condemn  the  Directory,  but  not  the  Church.  It  does  not  call 
for  any  such.  The  garbled  extract  is  found  in  paragraph  11.  It  states 
that  Mary  is  invoked,  even  in  the  Mass :  this  I  have  before  disposed  of. 
Next,  that  the  Church  has  instituted  almost  as  many  feasts  in  her  hon- 
our, as  she  celebrates  in  honour  of  her  divine  Son.  If  the  word  honour 
has  the  same  meaning  in  each  place,  I  say  the  doctrine  is  not  that  of  the 
Church: — but  the  writer  of  the  Directory  has  not  given  that  meaning 
to  the  passage,  for  in  the  very  second  line  he  drew  the  distinction :  and 
by  the  suppression  of  that  portion  of  the  document,  an  unfair  exhibition 
is  given  of  the  remainder.  The  words  of  the  writer  are  far  more  strong 
in  regard  to  the  devotion  towards  Mary,  than  are  those  of  any  strict  and 
close  explanation  of  doctrine  by  a  competent  tribunal :  and  though  I  can- 
not find  in  the  phrases  anything  which  is  against  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church,  yet  they  are  much  better  suited  to  the  expression  of  private, 
individual  devotion,  than  to  doctrinal  explanation ;  they  are  unnecessarily 
and  hyperbolically  strong,  though  not,  strictly  speaking,  inaccurate. 

The  following  is  the  whole  paragraph;  the  words  are  printed  as  in 

the  original. 

"On  the  Feasts  of  the  Blessed  Virgin.  All  the  Festivals  of  the  Blessed  Virgin 
should  be  dear  to  Christians;  because  after  God,  Mary  is  the  most  worthy  object 
of  their  devotion.  In  all  ages,  the  faithful  have  honoured  and  invoked  the  Blessed 
Virgin;  and  thus  has  that  prophecy  been  accomplished,  which  is  found  in  her  cele- 
brated canticle,  where  she  says,  that  from  henceforth  all  generations  shall  call  me 
blessed.  {Luke  i.  48).  The  Catholic  Church  invokes  IMary  in  every  part  of  the 
divine  office,  and  more  especially  in  the  oblation  of  the  holy  sacrifice  of  the  Mass. 
Besides,  she  has  instituted  almost  as  many  Feasts  in  her  honour,  as  she  celebrates 
in  honour  of  her  divine  Son.  It  is  the  duty  of  every  Christian  to  join  in  this  devotion 
of  the  Church,  and  celebrate  worthily  all  these  Feasts.  We  shall  set  down  some- 
thing on  each  one  of  them  in  particular. ' ' 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  35 


In  this  there  is  nothing  to  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  Mary  is  to 
receive  such  worship  as  is  due  only  to  Christ,  but  a  statement  that  her 
memory  and  virtues  are  honoured  on  almost  as  many  festivals,  as  are 
specially  celebrated  in  honour  of  the  Birth,  Manifestation,  Circumcision, 
Transfiguration,  Crucifixion,  Resurrection,  Holy  Name  and  Ascension  of 
our  blessed  Lord  Jesus.  As  yet  then,  we  have  neither  upright  nor  down- 
right idolatry. 

The  next  proof  is  in  paragraph  12,  which  is  a  garbled  extract  from 
the  following: 

On  the  Nativity  of  the  Blessed  Virgin.  "The  birth  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  is 
celebrated  in  the  same  sentiments  as  her  Conception:  the  Church  makes  use  of  the 
same  office  for  both  Feasts :  and  in  fact,  it  is  the  same  grace  in  Mary  which  sanctified 
her  Conception  and  Nativity.  Mary  was  born  for  great  purposes:  never  did  any 
creature  render  so  much  glory  to  God;  never  did  one  procure  so  much  good  to 
mankind:  by  giving  us  a  Eedeemer,  she  gave  us  everything.  We  must  beg  her  in 
this  Feast  to  preserve  in  us,  by  her  prayers,  what  she  has  obtained  for  us  from 
heaven. ' ' 

The  charge  is  that  we  pay  to  her  the  same  worship  we  pay  to  Christ, 
as  God.  We  say  that  she  obtained  from  heaven,  for  us,  something. 
What  was  that  something ?— The  Redeemer:  that  she  gave  him  to  us. 
The  question  is,  Did  she  obtain  him  by  her  merits?— If  the  book  says 
"yes,"  I  condemn  it:  for  the  Catholic  Church  tells  me  that  she  did  not. 
But  she  did  in  fact,  obtain  him  from  heaven,  by  the  mercy  of  heaven  to 
us,  for  Mary  had  no  claim  to  be  selected  amongst  all  the  other  daughters 
of  men:  and  the  compiler  of  the  Calendar  himself  distinctly  holds  the 
same  doctrine;  for,  mentioning  the  fact,  he  writes. 

On  the  Annunciation.  "The  Annunciation  is  both  a  Feast  of  Jesus  Christ  and 
the  Blessed  Virgin;  because  it  was  on  this  day  that  the  Word  was  made  flesh,  and 
Mary  became  the  mother  of  God.  This  was  the  greatest  of  all  days,  the  object 
of  the  sighs  of  the  patriarchs  and  prophets:  the  day  on  which  the  only  Son  of  God 
united  himself  to  our  nature  in  the  unity  of  person.  This  miracle,  the  greatest  the 
Almighty  ever  wrought,  was  operated  in  the  womb  of  Mary,  as  in  the  most  worthy 
temple  of  the  Divine  Majesty. 

"From  the  very  earliest  ages,  this  Feast  has  always  been  regarded  as  of  great 
obligation;  and  every  faithful  Christian  should  accordingly  expand  his  heart  in 
sentiments  of  love  and  gratitude,  in  the  contemplation  of  so  inestimable  a  benefit; 
the  Church  would  even  wish  that  the  thought  of  this  mystery  would  never  escape 
our  memory:  and  with  this  view  she  exhorts  the  faithful  to  recite  the  Angelus 
thrice  every  day,  and  puts  them  in  mind  of  it,  by  the  sound  of  the  bell. 

"This  same  day  was  also  the  most  glorious  to  Mary;  for  by  becoming  the 
mother  of  God,  she  was  elevated  far  above  every  creature,  and  became  worthy  of 
the  respect  both  of  angels  and  of  men:  thus  we  find  the  angel  Gabriel  accosted  her 
with  respect,  and  was  the  first  to  proclaim  her  Blessed.  Let  us  repeat,  with  all 
possible  devotion,  the  beautiful  prayer  which  begins  with  this  salutation;  and  let 
us  never  cease  soliciting  the  protection  of  the  mother  of  God." 


36  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

AVe  ask  her  to  preserve  in  us,  "by  her  omnipotence."  No. — God 
forbid, — "by  her  prayers,"  the  prayers  which  she  addresses  to  her  God, 
and  our  God,  what  Heaven  has  bestowed  upon  us,  not  through  her  merits, 
but  through  his  mercy :  the  graces  of  that  Redeemer  whom  she  gave  us, 
by  his  vouchsafing  to  be  born  of  her.  But  your  garbler  ought  not  to  have 
concealed  the  fact,  that  this  very  article  and  the  preceding  referred  to 
that  on  "her  conception,"  and  thereby  it  was  more  fully  explained. 
The  article  is  the  following : 

On  the  Conception  of  the  Blessed  Virgin.  "The  conception  of  the  Blessed 
Virgin  is  celebrated  in  memory  of  the  inestimable  privilege  granted  her,  in  being 
conceived  in  original  justice,  and  in  being  exempted  from  all  sin;  the  Son  of  God 
would  not  permit  her  in  whose  womb  he  was  himself  to  be  conceived,  and  who  was 
to  bear  him  nine  months,  to  be  for  a  single  instant  contaminated  with  the  stain  of 
Bin:  at  the  same  time  he  gave  her  existence,  he  infused  grace  into  her  soul:  and 
thereby  he  has  been  far  more  perfectly  her  Saviour,  than  if  in  order  to  deliver  her 
from  sin,  he  had  waited  until  she  was  sullied  with  it.  The  Church  in  this  Feast 
congratulates  with  Mary  on  this  inestimable  privilege,  which  is  peculiar  to  her,  and 
which  renders  her  so  similar  to  her  divine  Son.  In  this  feast  we  should  ask,  through 
the  intercession  of  the  immaculate  Virgin,  for  perfect  purity  of  soul  and  body." 

In  this,  it  is  true,  she  is  said  to  have  been  rendered  in  some  manner 
similar  to  her  divine  Son.  But  in  Mary  it  was  a  privilege  conferred  by 
her  Son,  before  his  incarnation,  by  w^hich  he  infused  grace  into  her  soul, 
became  her  Saviour,  and  making  her  free  from  sin,  made  her  like  to  him 
in  holiness  derived  from  him.  This  is  far  from  giving  to  her  the  worship 
due  only  to  him. 

The  next  proof  in  paragraph  13,  is,  that  in  the  article  on  the  annun- 
ciation, we  are  told  in  the  last  two  lines,  not  to  cease  soliciting  the  pro- 
tection of  the  mother  of  God, — evidently  by  asking  her  to  pray  for  us : — 
for  the  petition  is  the  following,  ' '  Holy  ]\Iary,  Mother  of  God !  pray  for 
us,  sinners,  now,  and  at  the  hour  of  our  death,  Amen." 

I  cannot  see  how  the  14th  paragraph  can  establish  the  guilt  of 
idolatry  against  any  person,  for  the  averment  is,  that  the  writer  says 
Jesus  Christ  made  use  of  Mary  as  an  instrument  through  whom  he  might 
distribute  his  graces.  I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  distributed  graces 
through  the  instrumentality  of  St.  Paul.  I  do  not  therefore  adore  St. 
Paul,  as  I  adore  our  Saviour.  Is  the  difficulty  in  the  phrase,  avail  him- 
self of  his  holy  mother? — If  the  writer  meant  to  say  that  Christ  could  not 
do  it  without  her,  I  condemn  him,  and  so  will  the  Catholic  Church. 
Here  is,  therefore,  no  idolatry. 

The  next  proof  is  in  paragraph  15.  Is  it  idolatry  to  call  persons 
the  faithful  servants  of  Mary?  If  by  faithful  servant  it  is  meant  to 
insinuate  that  the  same  service  is  due  to  her  as  is  due  to  God,  I  condemn 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  37 

the  phrase,  and  so  would  the  Catholic  Church.  But,  dear  gentlemen, 
I  trust  you  will  not  imagine  I  intend  to  adore  you,  because  I  have  the 
honour,  so  frequently  to  subscribe  myself  your  obedient,  humble  servant. 
— No,  no,  you  may  feel  quite  convinced  that  B.  C.  does  not  look  upon  you 
as  invested  with  the  qualities  of  the  Deity.  Hence  to  say  that  they  are 
the  faithful  servants  of  Mary,  is  not  idolatry,  neither  is  it  adoring  her, 
to  say  that  she  offered  the  sacrifice  of  her  homage,  her  resignation,  her 
sufferings,  and  her  feelings,  together  with  that  of  her  beloved  Son,  to 
the  eternal  Father,  at  the  foot  of  the  cross  of  Jesus.  It  would  afford 
me,  callous  wretch  that  I  am!  more  consolation  to  unite  in  spirit  with 
Holy  Mary,  in  that  moment  of  affliction,  than  to  possess  all  the  misap- 
plied subtlety,  which  her  ingenious  and  immitigable  opponents  have  ever 
exhibited  in  their  extraordinarily  persevering  efforts  to  strip  her  of  that 
glory  which  her  Son  conferred  upon  her,  under  the  pretext  of  saving  all 
their  homage  for  himself.  The  glow  of  fanaticism,  and  the  fervour  of 
superstition  are  indeed  bad;  but  either  is  preferable  to  the  cold  heart 
which  would  not  feel  sympathy  w'ith  the  afflicted  mother  of  the  suf- 
fering Redeemer ;  and  to  feel  and  to  express  this  sympathy  is  idolatry ! — 
Bless  the  genius  of  your  philosophical  correspondent ! 

When  to  assert  that  God  bestows  a  crown  of  glory  upon  one  who 
has  fought  the  good  fight,  will  be  lawfully  marked  as  idolatry,  we  must, 
however  reluctantly,  acknowledge  St.  Paul  to  be  an  idolater,  or  at  all 
events  that  they  who  believe  in  the  fact  declared  in  his  Second  Epistle 
to  Timothy,  iv.  8,  are  idolaters.  I,  for  one,  do  not  think  they  are  made 
so  by  that  belief;  neither  is  it  idolatry  to  assert  that  honour  is  due  to 
those  whom  God  highly  favours,  (Prot.  version,  Luhe  i.  28),  provided 
this  homage  of  honour  be  not  what  is  due  only  to  God;  neither  is  it 
idolatry  for  each  of  us  to  love  the  mother  of  Jesus,  and  to  address  her 
by  that  endearing  appellation  which  Christ  himself  desired  his  beloved 
disciple  to  use  towards  his  afflicted,  and  venerable,  and  Holy  Mother. 
(Jo/mxix.  26,  27). 

Thus,  I  have  unnecessarily  undertaken  to  show,  that  in  this  private, 
ephemeral,  and  unauthorized  publication,  which  is  anything  but  a  public 
document,  there  is  not  a  single  expression  savouring  of  idolatry,  though 
the  examination  has  indeed  made  me  feel  serious  pain,  indevout  as  I  am, 
at  the  callous,  irreverent,  and  tortuous  fallacy  of  your  inexorable  and  in- 
consistent correspondent. 

But  he  has  other  proofs  of  the  downright  idolatry,  paragraph  17. 
And,  gentlemen,  this  is  no  private  compilation. — ^Yea,  it  is  from  the  very 
Missal,  she  is  called  Holy!  !  !  Now  there  can  be  no  question  of  the 
downright  idolatry !  !  ! — Then  the  Holy  Ghost  inspired  Zachary  with  an 


38  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

idolatrous  sentiment  when  he  declared  that  it  was  part  of  God's  oath 
that  the  descendants  of  Abraham,  of  whom  Mary  was  one,  should  serve 
him  in  holiness.  {Luke  i.  75).  St.  Paul  leads  us  to  most  idolatrous 
notions,  when  he  tells  the  Ephesians,  (iv.  24),  "to  put  on  the  new  man, 
which  after  God  is  created  in  righteousness  and  true  holiness."  Equal- 
ly wrong  was  it  for  this  Apostle  to  pray  for  the  Thessalonians,  (1,  iii. 
13),  that  the  Lord  may  establish  their  hearts  unblamable  in  holiness, 
before  God,  even  our  Father,  at  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
with  all  the  saints."  And  what  is  the  word  saint,  but  the  more  literal 
and  ancient  translation  of  sanctus,  holy  ?  Did  not  God  himself  command 
the  Israelites,  {Exod.  xxii.  31),  "And  ye  shall  be  holy  men  unto  me?" 
Did  you  read  of  the  holy  angels?  {Mark  viii.  38).  But  why  waste 
time  and  ink  and  paper,  on  such  folly  as  this?  Again  the  Missal  styles 
her  Mother  of  God.  Good  gentlemen !  are  my  eyes  deceived  ?  Will 
Protestant  Episcopalians  leave  us  no  choice  between  idolatry  and  Nes- 
torianism  ?  Are  you  prepared  for  the  result  ? — And  she  is  asked  to  inter- 
cede for  us.  Nothing  more  certain :  that  fact  is  fully  admitted.  This 
is  therefore  downright  idolatry.  By  no  means:  quite  the  contrary;  it 
is  an  acknowledgment  and  declaration  that  she  must  pray  to  a  greater 
being  than  herself ;  to  her  God,  who  is  also  our  God ! 

The  passage  from  the  Christian's  Guide  goes  no  farther,  and  is  not 
idolatry. 

In  paragraph  19,  the  good  man's  zeal  outsteps  his  premises. — "Now 
such  language  of  adoration."  Softly,  good  sir.  We  have  examined 
every  syllable  of  it,  and  not  one  syllable  was  the  language  of  adoration. 
Adoration  is  the  worship  due  to  God.  This  is  what  we  call  misrepresenta- 
tion, "and  prayer."  Yes,  in  the  lesser  sense,  "invoking  her,  asking  her 
aid, ' '  by  her  prayers  to  God  for  us,  as  you  ask  your  friends  in  the  body 
to  pray  for  you,  but  not  prayer  of  adoration,  such  as  we  address  to 
God,  who  alone  is  the  fountain  and  source  of  mercy.  Thus  we  do 
say  that  Holy  Mary,  the  mother  of  God,  ever  glorious  virgin,  is  but  a 
creature,  and  ought  not  to  receive  the  homage  due  to  the  Creator  alone : 
and  we  do  not  pay  it  to  her,  and  thus  we  do  not  commit  downright  idol- 
atry, though  your  "Protestant  Catholic"  has  been  guilty  of  various  sad 
representations,  and  has  most  unmercifully  outraged  logic. 

Roman  Catholics  condemn  as  heretics  the  Collyridians  mentioned  by 
St.  Epiphanius,  who  were  cut  off  from  our  communion,  because  of  their 
paying  an  idolatrous  homage  to  the  blessed  Virgin.  This  fact  speaks  suf- 
ficiently strong,  to  show  that  w'e  neither  practise  nor  approve  the  crime 
which  your  correspondent  would  fasten  upon  us. 

The  nineteenth  paragraph  states  that  our  doctrine  cannot  be  true, 


two        DEFENCE    OF   PRECEDING    SECTION  39 

without  giving  to  the  blessed  Virgin  (I  may  add,  each  of  the  saints,) 
"the  divine  attributes  of  omniscience  and  omnipresence."  I  can,  upon 
a  variety  of  grounds,  cut  short  any  disquisition,  by  a  denial  of  such  a 
consequence.  The  first  ground  I  shall  take,  is  that  founded  upon  the 
indisputable  distinction  between  the  extent  of  this  globe  and  the  immen- 
sity of  space.  A  being  whose  view  would  reach  to  a  great  extent,  is  not 
therefore  said  to  see  through  all  space ;  and  our  globe,  from  which  Chris- 
tian people  send  forth  their  prayers,  is  but  a  speck  in  the  midst  of  crea- 
tion. It  is  great  in  relation  to  us ;  but  how  small  is  it  in  relation  to  him 
whose  eye  pervades  the  boundless  recesses  of  that  space,  through  so 
small  a  portion  of  which  the  first  rays  of  our  sun  have  as  yet  travelled  ? 
These  big  words,  omniscience  and  omnipresence,  are  thoughtlessly  and 
incautiously  used.  God  alone  is  omniscient  and  omnipresent;  but  as 
man  is  raised  above  the  brute  in  knowledge,  and  as  man  excels  man  in 
science,  so  angelic  natures  exceed  ours;  neither  can  we  comprehend, 
much  less  fix  the  boundary  which  God  has  placed  to  their  powers  of  in- 
tuition. Spiritual  beings  as  they  are,  we  know  that  it  is  not  with  the 
eye  they  see,  nor  with  the  ear  they  hear ;  we  know  not  how  they  move, 
if  motion  they  have ;  nor  how,  if  at  all,  they  correspond  to  space.  We 
live  in  a  material  world :  we  know  that  it  differs  from  the  world  of  spirits, 
in  which  angels  and  saints  exist;  and  besides  the  blunder  of  extending 
our  conclusions  to  all  extent,  from  our  premises,  which  only  took  con- 
siderable extent,  shall  we  be  guilty  of  the  attempt  to  argue  upon  prin- 
ciples of  analogy,  regarding  things  where  no  foundation  for  analogy 
exists?  Shall  we  argue  from  our  imperfect  experience  in  this  material 
world,  in  which  we  live,  and  of  which  we  know  so  little,  to  a  spiritual 
world,  of  which  we  have  no  experience,  and  concerning  which  so  little 
is  known?  This  is  not  only  illogical,  but  presumptuous.  The  nature 
of  the  saints  reigning  together  with  Christ  in  heaven,  is  at  present  al- 
together spiritual,  and  even  when  their  bodies  will  arise  in  the  ressur- 
rection;  even  then,  the  attributes  of  those  bodies  shall  be  like  to  those 
of  the  blessed  spirits,  the  angelic  substances.  This  is  the  testimony  of 
Christ. 

' '  And  Jesus  answering,  said  to  them :  Do  ye  not  therefore  err,  not  understanding 
the  Scriptures,  nor  the  power  of  God? 

"For  when  they  shall  rise  again  from  the  dead,  they  shall  neither  marry,  nor 
be  given  in  marriage;  but  are  as  the  angels  in  heaven. 

"And  as  concerning  the  dead,  that  they  rise  again,  have  you  not  read  in  the 
book  of  Moses,  how  in  the  bush  God  spoke  to  him,  saying:  I  am  the  God  of  Abra- 
ham, and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob? 

"He  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the  living.  You  therefore  do  greatly 
err."      {Mark  xii.  24,  25,  26,  27). 


40  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

An  extended  view  is  not  omnipresence,  neither  is  extensive  knowl- 
edge omniscience;  extended  views  and  knowledge  are  required,  by  our 
doctrine,  in  these  spirits,  but  omnipresence  and  omniscience  are  not. 
I  do  not  advert  to  the  scriptural  facts  which  exhibit  full  evidence  of 
the  existence  of  what  our  tenets  necessarily  suppose:  but  I  thus  at  once 
show  that  the  assumed  conclusions  in  this  nineteenth  paragraph  are 
perfectly  unfounded. 

Not  only  is  there  a  total  want  of  correct  reasoning,  but  there  is  in  the 
assumption  a  principle  which  will  of  course  overthrow  many  of  the  Scrip- 
tural doctrines  of  your  own  church;  for  you  believe  that  the  angels  in 
heaven  do  know  and  rejoice  at  the  conversion  of  sinners,  who  may  at  the 
same  instant  repent  in  various  parts  of  our  circumscribed  globe.  {Luke 
XV.  7,  10).  You  also  do  believe  that  the  devil,  who  is  neither  omniscient 
nor  omnipresent,  tempts  people  in  all  parts  of  the  world,  at  the  same  time 
that  he  is  their  accuser  before  the  throne  of  God.  {Bevel,  xii.  9,  10 ; 
Ephes.  iv.  27 ;  vi.  11 ;  I  Tim.  iii.  6,  7 ;  II  Tim.  ii.  26 ;  James  iv.  7,  and  so 
forth).  As  I  am  at  present  merely  on  the  defensive,  I  consider  it  unnec- 
essary for  me  to  adduce  those  texts  and  reasons  that  would  establish  the 
facts  upon  which  our  doctrine  rests.  I  shall  therefore  content  myself 
with  showing,  as  I  trust  I  have  done,  that  the  gentleman  with  the  curious 
name  has  altogether  failed  in  his  efforts  to  maintain  his  positions ;  that  he 
has  treated  our  documents  with  manifest  dishonesty,  and  altogether  mis- 
represented our  tenets,  in  his  first  essay,  wherein  he  undertook  to  adduce 
sufiScient  evidence  to  prove  that  I  asserted  what  was  not  true,  when  I 
stated  it  to  be  a  misrepresentation  to  charge  us  with  ' '  praying  to  angels 
and  saints  to  save  us  by  their  merits,"  "making  those  angels  and  saints 
mediators  with  Christ,  or  in  his  stead ;  thus  dishonouring  Christ,  the  only 
mediator,"  and  "giving  to  creatures  the  worship  due  to  God  alone," 
and  ' '  thus  being  guilty  of  downright  idolatry. ' ' 

I  shall  proceed  to  consider  his  second  essay  in  my  next,  and  remain, 
gentlemen,  without  any  intention  of  adoring  you. 

Your  obedient,  humble  servant, 

B.  c. 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  41 

LETTER  VI. 

A   most    compendious    way,    and   civil 

At  once  to  cheat  the  world,  the  devil, 

And   heaven,    and   hell,   yourselves,   and   those 

On  whom  you  vainly  think  t'  impose. 

Why  then   (quoth  he)   may  hell  surprise. 

That  trick,  (said  she)  will  not  pass  twice: 

I've  learned  how   far  I'm   to   believe 

Your  pinning  oaths  upon  your  sleeve. 

But  there's  a  better  way  of  clearing 

What  you  would  prove,  than  downright  swearing. 

Butler,  Hudihras.  Part  iii.  c.  1. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  June  6,  1829. 
To  the  Editors: 

Gentlemen: — There  is  no  subject  upon  which  greater  injustice  has 
been  done  to  us  than  on  the  worship  of  images.  There  are  serious  dif- 
ferences in  matters  of  fact,  and  there  is  a  great  difference  in  principle 
upon  this  subject  between  several  Protestants  and  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church ;  I  say  several  Protestants,  because  I  do  not  find  the  Protestants, 
as  a  body,  of  the  same  opinion  regarding  the  principle;  nor  do  I  find 
them,  by  any  means,  unanimous  as  to  the  statement  of  facts.  The 
chief  object  is,  therefore,  to  understand  what  our  present  opponent  looks 
upon  to  be  erroneous.  At  first  view  it  would  appear  to  be  easily  solved, 
by  saying  that  he  looked  upon  idolatry  to  be  erroneous.  But  this  answer 
leaves  us  as  completely  as  ever  at  a  loss ;  for,  perhaps,  we  are  not  agreed 
as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  itself,  nor  are  our  opponents  agreed 
amongst  themselves  upon  this  point.  For  instance,  some  of  them  will 
say  that,  to  pay  any  respect  whatever  to  an  image,  is  idolatry;  whilst 
others  state,  that,  if  the  image  be  considered  only  as  a  memorial,  by 
means  of  which  the  mind  is  brought  to  worship  the  Creator,  whom  it 
represents,  it  is  not  idolatry;  for  it  is  God,  and  not  the  image,  that  is 
worshipped.  A  third  class  will  assert,  that,  to  make  anything  as  a  like- 
ness or  image  of  the  Creator,  is,  in  itself,  highly  criminal,  and  is  idol- 
atry. These  are  some,  but  not  all  the  varieties  of  opinion  amongst 
Protestants. 

Again,  they  differ  in  their  statement  of  facts;  for,  whilst  some  of 
them  admit  that  we  do  not  adore  images,  others  assert  that  we  do  adore 
them.  And  again,  whilst  we  meet  with  some  who  admit  that  there  might 
and  do  exist  various  degrees  of  religious  homage,  which  may  be  all 
designated  by  the  name  of  worship,  and  the  highest  of  which  (adora- 
tion) is  that  which  is  due  to  God  alone — we  meet  with  many  who  under- 


42  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

take  to  say,  that  all  religious  homage  is  adoration,  and  that  there  can- 
not be  any  graduations  of  worship ;  that,  in  fact,  worship  is  an  in- 
divisible point,  in  which  there  cannot  be  higher  and  lower. 

From  this  view,  it  will  be  pretty  clear,  that  the  subject  has  been 
rendered  more  difficult,  confused,  and  intricate  than  might  at  first  seem. 
But  as  I  have  to  deal  with  an  individual,  I  consider  it  to  be  my  duty 
to  endeavour,  first,  to  ascertain  how  far  he  agrees  with  me  in  principle, 
and  in  fact ;  and  not  to  make  him  accountable  for  the  opinions  of  other 
Protestants. 

In  the  first  place,  I  believe  he  admits  as  a  fact,  that  the  worship 
which  the  Eoman  Catholic  Church  permits  to  be  paid  to  images  is  not  of 
the  same  sort  as  that  which  she  states  is  due  only  to  God.  My  ground 
for  this  assertion  is  the  following  passage  in  his  second  essay  (for 
March),  paragraph  23: 

"Christians  under  the  denomination  of  Roman  Catholics,  like  other  Christians, 
worship  the  one  true  God  of  the  Scriptures.  But  their  Church  has  authorized  a  use 
of  images  in  their  places  of  worship,  that  would  make  a  certain  kind  of  worship 
paid  to  them  consistent  with  the  purer  and  exclusive  homage  which  Jehovah  demands 
for  himself." 

Thus,  he  admits  that  there  are  degrees  of  worship,  the  purer  and 
exclusive  homage  of  Jehovah,  and  a  certain  kind  of  worship  paid  to 
images.  The  former  is  called  by  Roman  Catholics  adoration,  and  is 
given  exclusively  to  the  one  true  God  of  the  Scriptures ;  the  other  is  not 
adoration,  but  a  certain  kind  of  different  worship  paid  to  images.  I 
shall  always,  upon  this  subject,  use  the  word  adoration  in  the  meaning 
which  is  here  affixed  by  me  to  it ;  such,  also,  is  the  meaning  in  which  it 
is  understood  by  all  Roman  Catholics  using  the  English  language.  In 
a  preceding  part  of  the  same  paragraph,  he  has  the  following  expres- 
sion of  his. opinions: 

"It  may  be  true,  that  some  Protestants,  in  an  intemperate  zeal  of  dissent  from 
Popery,  have  considered  Eoman  Catholics  equally  as  idolatrous  as  the  heathens  either 
are  or  were.  I  believe,  however,  that  a  wide  distinction  is  generally  considered  due 
in  favour  of  Christian  worshippers  of  the  one  only  God,  however  incumbered  their 
worship  may  be  with  erroneous  appendages,  from  those,  who,  with  no  knowledge  or 
belief  of  the  one  Jehovah,  may  worship  infinitely  various  fictitious  dieties,  in  idols, 
in  which  they  may  be  supposed  to  reside." 

From  this  I  infer  that  he  does  not  consider  Roman  Catholics  to  be 
pol5i:heists,  since  they  are  worshippers  of  the  "one  only  God,"  "the 
one  true  God  of  the  Scriptures,"  whom  they  worship  with  "the  purer 
and  exclusive  homage"  of  adoration;  this  they  pay  to  God  alone,  and 
they  have  no  other  God  but  him;  though  your  correspondent  considers 
their  worship  to  be  "encumbered  with  erroneous  appendages,"  such  as 
"a  certain  kind  of  worship  paid  to  images."     In  this  passage  he  also 


two        DEFENCE    OF   PRECEDING    SECTION  43 


draws  "a  wide  distinction  between"  "those  Christian"  Roman  Cath- 
olic "worshippers  of  the  one  only  God,"  and  the  persons  who,  "with  no 
knowledge  or  belief  on  the  one  Jehovah,  may  worship"  "fictitious 
deities,  in  idols,  in  which  they  may  be  supposed  to  reside."  These  we 
may  safely  call  idolaters.  In  a  subsequent  passage  of  the  paragraph 
he  again  states,  that  there  is  an  "important"  "difference"  between  the 
Roman  Catholics  who  pay  adoration  to  the  one  true  God  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  the  idolater  who  "either  honoured  his  idols  with  a  worship 
terminating  in  them,  or  through  them  worshipped  the  unknown  God." 
"Voltaire,  it  is  true,  thought  the  heathens  were  no  more  idolaters  than  Eoman 
Catholics.  I  would  not,  however,  take  his  authority  as  good,  against  the  industrious 
author  of  the  essay,  in  the  Review.  There  is  a  difference,  and  we  should  admit  that 
it  is  important.  The  poor  Indian  either  honoured  his  idols  with  a  worship  terminat- 
ing in  them,  or,  through  them,  worshipped  the  unknown  God. ' ' 

The  author  of  the  essay,  he  had  previously  adverted  to  in  this  pas- 
sage— 

"The  author  of  an  article  in  the  fourth  number  of  the  Southern  Review  has, 
with  needless  elaborateness  of  detail,  given  the  literary  and  political  community, 
for  whom  that  work  is  intended,  reasons  to  believe,  that  the  idolatry  of  the  aborigines 
of  America  is  a  very  different  thing  from  the  Roman  Catholic  reverence  or  adoration 
of  images." 

From  this  passage  it  would  appear  that  the  author  of  that  article  ^^ 
in  the  Review  stated  that  Roman  Catholics  paid  ''adoration''  to  images. 
I  have  very  carefully  perused  the  article,  and  can  distinctly  aver  that 
the  author  says  no  such  thing.  It  is  a  little  unpleasant  to  be  obliged 
to  exhibit  those  peccadilloes,  and  is,  moreover,  somewhat  troublesome 
to  me,  since  it  puts  it  out  of  my  power  to  rely  on  the  assertion  of  your 
correspondent.  However,  I  am  not,  perhaps,  warranted  in  using  this 
language;  for  if,  by  adoration,  he  means  [a]  "certain  kind  of  worship, 
quite  different  from  that  which  is  given  exclusively  to  Jehovah,  the 
only  true  God  of  the  Scriptures,"  it  is  not  impossible  but  the  author  of 
that  essay  did  admit  that  Roman  Catholics  paid  such  adoration  to 
images,  though  he  never  used  the  expression  either  in  phrase  or  in  sub- 
stance: or,  perhaps,  some  other  curiously  baptized  correspondent  will 
prove  the  point  against  him  in  your  number  for  August.  The  article 
has,  I  believe,  been  rather  unsparingly  commented  upon,  because  of  the 

following  passage : 

"Another  passage  in  the  letter  exhibits  to  us  the  grounds  upon  which  we  are 
fully  warranted  in  calling  their  (the  Indians')  worship  idolatrous.  Idolatry  is  the 
giving  to  any  created  being  the  worship  of  adoration  which  is  due  to  God  alone. 
The  person  who  acknowledged  the  existence  of  only  one  God,  and  paid  to  him  adora- 
tion under  any  name  by  which  he  might  be  designated,  would  not  be  an  idolater, 

"  See  Essay  on  the  Religion  of  the  N.  Am.  Indians. 


44  DOCTRINE  Vol. 


because  the  object  of  his  adoration  was  the  supreme  and  only  God.  The  person 
who  believed  the  divinity  to  reside  in  a  statue  or  image,  and  therefore  made  that 
statue  or  image  the  object  of  his  adoration,  would  be  an  idolater;  but  if  he  viewed 
that  image  as  it  really  was,  not  divine,  nor  partaking  of  the  divinity,  nor  having 
any  inherent  sanctity,  but  a  mere  memorial  by  which  his  attention  was  awakened, 
his  imagination  fixed,  and  his  religious  feeling  excited,  and  that  in  its  presence  he 
adored  the  eternal  and  spiritual  God,  and  him  alone — clearly  he  was  not  an  idolater: 
for  though,  by  occasion  of  the  creature,  he  was  brought  to  the  adoration  of  the 
Creator,  he  adored  God,  and  him  alone.  Thus  he  who,  filled  with  the  piety  which 
nature  excites,  raises  himself  from  the  contemplation  of  a  flower,  or  the  consideration 
of  the  solar  system,  to  the  adoration  of  Him  who  gave  to  the  one  its  delicate  tints, 
and  to  the  other  its  admirable  order  and  wondrous  harmony,  is  not  the  adorer  of 
nature,  but  of  nature's  God.  He  who  pays  the  homage  of  adoration  to  created 
beings,  however  intelligent  and  superior  they  may  be,  whether  they  be  holy  or 
wicked,  gives  to  the  creature  that  which  is  due  to  the  Creator  alone,  and  is  thus  an 
idolater:  thus,  the  worshippers  of  Mars,  of  Juno,  of  Ceres,  and  the  other  deities 
of  Greece  and  Eome,  gave  to  created  beings  the  homage  of  adoration,  and  were 
idolaters ;  and  though  they  should  never  have  represented  by  statues  or  painting  those 
f.bjects  of  their  homage,  the  crime  would  have  been  fully  committed;  the  adoration 
of  those  demons,  by  occasion  and  in  presence  of  the  image,  was  still  the  undue 
worship  of  creatures,  and  they  who  were  so  far  besotted  as  to  adore  the  statue  itself, 
were,  if  possible,  more  criminal.  The  adhering  to  this  idolatry  so  far  as  to  withdraw 
its  votaries  from  the  adoration  of  the  only  and  true  God,  would  have  been  the 
consummation  of  this  apostacy;  and  such  was  the  state  of  the  Indians  of  whom  we 
treat.  The  Manitou  is  not  considered  as  an  intercessor  with  God,  as  a  fellow- 
worshipper  with  man  of  the  Deity,  but  is  the  object  of  adoration,  the  lord  of  life 
and  of  death. ' ' 

The  article  was  considered  by  several  with  whom  I  spoke,  to  have 
been  obnoxious,  for  an  additional  reason:  because  there  was  a  general 
impression  that  it  came  from  the  pen  of  a  writer  who  is  supposed  to  be- 
lieve, that  the  kindness  of  his  fellow-citizens  has  more  than  conpensated 
for  the  hostility  of  unappeasable  opponents.  But,  so  far  as  I  can  ob- 
serve, there  is  not  throughout  the  whole  article  a  single  avennent  respect- 
ing Roman  Catholic  adoration  of  images,  or  Roman  Catholic  veneration 
of  images,  unless  it  be  contained  in  the  above  paragraph,  which  another 
religious  writer  has  proclaimed  to  be  destructive  of  Christianity. 

How  far  it  is  "needlessly  elaborate,"  touches  not  the  present  ques- 
tion; but,  it  appears  to  me,  only  to  do  what  your  correspondent,  and 
all  other  writers  of  his  description,  have  been  grossly  deficient  in  omit- 
ting, to  give  some  distinct  notion  of  what  is  meant  by  the  word  idolatry, 
previously  to  charging  millions  of  accountable  beings  with  the  practice 
of  "abominable  idolatry,  of  all  other  vices  most  detested  of  God,  and 
most  damnable  to  man." — {Homil.) 

In  the  same  twenty-third  paragraph,  your  correspondent,  after 
giving  pretty  correctly  the  passage  from  the  creed  of  the  Roman  Cath- 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  45 


olic  Church,  set  forth  by  Pope  Pius  IV.,  in  fulfilment  of  the  order  of  the 
Council  of  Trent,  favours  his  readers  with  a  piece  of  Latin,  which  he 
calls  "the  words  of  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent,"  but  which  is 
a  garbled  imitation,  instead  of  being  "the  words  of  the  decree."  Al- 
though  some  of  the  printed  words  are  nonsense,  and  there  is  a  transposi- 
tion of  a  point,  which  would  make  the  original  appear  to  place  the  wor- 
ship of  Christ  and  the  saints  upon  an  equal  footing :  yet  the  translation 
which  he  gives,  is  better  in  keeping  with  the  spirit  of  the  decree ;  though 
still,  in  that  translation,  the  point  is  not  introduced,  and  the  distinction 
between  the  adoration  of  Christ,  and  the  veneration  of  the  saints,  is  not 
so  strongly  marked  as  it  is  in  the  original.  Upon  this,  however,  I  shall 
not  rest  an  argument.  God  forbid  I  should  be  driven  to  the  wretched 
shift  of  endeavouring  to  sustain  a  calumny  upon,  perhaps,  a  printer's 
mistake.     From  all  this,  he  states : 

"Now,  the  honour  and  veneration  of  the  images  of  Christ,  and  so  forth,  thus 
provided  for  by  the  highest  authority  of  the  Eoman  Catholic  Church,  as  indispensably 
obligatory,  we  know  to  be  held  and  taught  in  that  church,  to  be  not  such  as  is  due 
to  God. 

"The  second  Council  of  Nice,  A.  D,  786,  which  is  referred  to  by  the  Council 
of  Trent,  on  this  subject,  did  assert  the  direct  worship  of  images;  declaring,  at  the 
same  time,  that  it  should  not  be  Latria,  which  is  due  only  to  God,  but  merely  an, 
honorary  adoration." 

Hence,  we  have  the  writer's  testimony,  or  admission,  for  the  follow- 
ing points : 
First.     That  Roman  Catholics  pay  to  the  one  only  God  of  the  Scriptures, 

a  purer  worship  than  they  pay  to  any  other  being. 
Second.     That  the  worship  that  they  pay  to  this  God,  is  a  kind  which 
is  given  exclusively  to  him,  and  which  we  call  adoration,  to  dis- 
tinguish it  from  any  other. 
Third.     That  they  admit  a  certain  kind  of  worship  to  be  paid  to  images, 
which  is  very  different  from  that  which  they  give  exclusively  to 
God,  and  which  they  assert  is  consistent  with  giving  that  purer  and 
exclusive  worship  of  adoration  to  God  alone. 
Fourth.     That  there  are  different  and  distinct  degrees  of  religious  wor- 
ship. 
Fifth.     That  however  erroneous  Roman  Catholics  may  be,  in  their  appen- 
dages of  the  worship  of  one  only  God,  of  which  the  worship  of 
images  is  one,  there  is  a  wide  distinction  to  be  taken  between  them 
and  those  who  worship  fictitious  deities,  in  idols  in  which  they  may 
be  supposed  to  reside. 


46  DOCTRINE  Vol 

Sixth.  That  Ronum  Catholics  are  not  polytheists,  for  they  believe 
in  the  existence  of  only  one  God,  to  whom,  exclusively,  they  pay 
adoration. 
Seventh.  That  there  exists  an  important  difference  between  Roman 
Catholics,  who  pay  to  images  a  certain  kind  of  worship,  and  idol- 
aters, who  give  to  their  idols  a  worship  terminating  in  those  idols. 
Eighth.     As  also  between   Roman   Catholics   and  those   idolaters,  who 

through  their  idols  worshipped  the  unknown  God. 
Ninth.     That  Roman  Catholics  do  not  believe  any  divinity  to  reside  in 

their  images. 
Tenth.     That  they  do  not  believe  any  power  to  reside  in  the  images. 
Eleventh.     That  the  honour  which  is  shown  to  the  images  of  Christ,  is 
referred  to  the  original,  so  that  through  the  image  Christ  is  adored 
by  Catholics. 
Twelfth.     That  through  the  images  of  the  saints,  Roman  Catholics  ven- 
erate the  saints  whose  similitude  the  images  bear,  so  that  the  hon- 
our shown  to  the  image,  is  referred  to  the  original. 
Upon  these  twelve  points,  the  author  of  the  essay  and  I  appear  to 
be  perfectly  agreed:  but  I  must  correct  a  mistake  of  his,  in  the  passage 
just  quoted  last  above,  where  he  asserts  that  this  honour  and  veneration 
of  the  images,  and  so  forth,  is  ' '  indispensably  obligatory. ' '     Such  is  not 
the  fact,  nor  is  such  a  provision  made.     A  person  might  be,  during  all 
his  life,  a  member  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  never  be  obliged 
to  pay  either  honour  or  veneration  to  any  image :  but  he  would  cease  to 
be  a  member  of  the  church,  by  deliberately  denying  that  it  was  lawful 
to  pay  due  honour  and  veneration  to  eitheer  the  images  of  Christ,  or  of 
the  saints.     Should  he  assert  that  they  ought  to  be  adored,  in  the  sense 
in  which  I  use  the  word,  he  would  also  cease  to  belong  to  the  church,  for 
he  w^ould  assert  idolatry,  or  that  undue  honour  should  be  given  to  them. 
Every  Catholic  is  bound  to  believe  the  true  doctrine ;  but  every  Cath- 
olic is   not  "indispensably  obliged"  to  practise   every   religious   duty 
which  he  may  lawfully  practise,  if  he  pleases.     Your  correspondent  is 
very  liable  to  mistakes. 

I  remarked  before,  upon  the  garbled  extract  which  was  given  to  us 
by  the  writer,  as  "the  words  of  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent, 
enacted  at  its  twenty-fifth  session,"  upon  this  subject.  In  a  note  to 
paragraph  23,  he  is  pleased  to  state,  that,  for  those  decrees,  Father 
Paul's  history  is  his  authority;  he  is,  moreover,  pleased  to  assert,  that 
neither  Mr.  Charles  Butler,  nor  B.  C,  can  make  good  their  insinuations 
against  the  correctness  of  that  history:  and  especially  asserts,  that  "it 
cannot  be  shown  that  Father  Paul  has  not  correctly  reported  the  decrees 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  47 

passed  by  this  Council. ' '  He  states  that,  several  years  ago,  he  did  him- 
self look  over  them  in  Pallavieini 's  work;  and  believes  that,  in  this 
respect,  there  is  no  vnaterial  difference."  He  then  insinuates,  that  Palla- 
vieini might  be  biassed  to  the  Catholic  side,  and  then  confirms  the  whole 
by  adducing,  in  support  of  the  correctness  of  Father  Paul,  "an  attested 
copy  of  the  original  acts  of  the  Council,"  preserved  in  the  library  of 
Cambridge  University,  in  England. 

Now,  the  question  is  not,  by  any  means,  as  to  whether  either  of  those 
writers.  Father  Paul,  or  Pallavieini,  gave  a  correct  history  of  the  pro- 
ceedings, debates,  and,  if  it  pleases  you,  the  intrigues  at  the  Council; 
the  question  is  a  far  more  simple  one,  and  much  more  easily  decided: 
whether  the  extract  given  by  your  correspondent,  contains  "the  words  of 
the  decree  ? "  A  decree  is  a  public  document,  every  word  of  which  should 
be  given,  when  quoted,  as  "the  words;"  and  then  the  suppression  of 
any  portion  of  "the  words,"  is  the  most  unpardonable  dishonesty. 
When  I  saw  your  "Protestant  Catholic's"  note,  before  I  read  the  decree, 
my  suspicions  were  excited,  and  I  began  to  consider  why  such  stress 
was  laid  upon  proving,  what  no  person  would  be  disposed  to  call  in  ques- 
tion, that  the  public  document  was  correctly  given.  I  next  observed, 
that  even  your  curiously  named  friend  manifested  extreme  caution  in 
asserting  that  the  documents  were  reported  in  the  same  words  in  both 
historians,  for  he  would  only  vouch  upon  a  distant  recollection  of  several 
years,  and  to  there  being,  in  this  respect,  no  material  difference.  But, 
why  should  there  be  any  difference,  if  they  were  both  honest?  They  had 
only  to  copy  the  words  of  a  public  document.  Then,  as  if  the  writer  was 
fully  aware  that  a  difference  would  be  discovered,  he  prepares  his  read- 
ers to  distrust  Pallavieini,  and  next  he  proceeds  to  strengthen  Father 
Paul.  It  was  now  too  manifest  to  me,  that  your  correspondent  was  aware 
of  a  difference  in  the  document,  as  given  by  each  of  the  historians.  Was 
it,  here  honest  in  him  to  quote  as  unquestioned,  a  doubtful  document  ? 

It  is  one  of  the  best  principles  of  evidence  that  no  secondary  testi- 
mony shall  be  admitted  when  primary  testimony  can  be  had;  and  it  is 
also  a  practical  maxim  that  secondary  testimony,  even  when  admitted, 
shall  not  weigh  as  much  as  that  which  is  primary.  Both  those  historians 
are  secondary  witnesses.  An  attempt  is  next  made  by  him,  it  is  true, 
to  give  us  primary  testimony,  but  at  second  hand;  an  attested  copy 
through  Dr.  Marsh.  The  attested  copy  might  be  correct  and  Dr.  Marsh 
might  -be  misquoted ;  this  I  state  not  to  insinuate  that  he  did,  but  to  il- 
lustrate my  position;  therefore,  this  statement  of  your  correspondent 
gives  us  no  primary  testimony.  The  attested  copy  would  be  testimony 
of  this  description,  not  in  its  strictest,  but  in  its  usual  and  practical 


48  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

meaning.  What  is  an  attested  copy?  One  testified  to  be  correct,  by 
a  public  officer  who  is  solemnly  bound,  and  trustworthy,  and  having 
the  means  of  ascertaining  its  correctneess  fully  in  his  power.  Let  us 
apply  this  to  the  Cambridge  copy.  Upon  the  very  face  of  the  case  it 
is  difficult  to  believe  it  to  be  what  your  correspondent  says.  Because 
at  the  very  time  of  the  session  of  the  Council,  the  laws  of  England  pro- 
hibited under  the  most  severe  penalties,  any  intercourse  with  the  only 
officers  of  the  See  of  Rome  who  could  give  the  attestation :  and  the  See 
of  Rome  had  excommunicated  the  persons  who  were  the  officers  of  the 
University  authorized  to  receive  and  to  preserve  the  copy.  To  suppose 
the  fact,  then,  we  must  first  suppose  the  officers  on  both  sides  to  have 
disobeyed  and  violated  the  laws  of  their  respective  governments.  Even 
at  this  day,  though  Catholics  are  emancipated,  an  officer  of  the  Univer- 
sity of  Cambridge  could  not  legally  receive  any  official  document  from 
an  officer  of  the  See  of  Rome. 

But,  gentlemen,  authenticated  copies  of  the  public  acts  and  decrees 
of  the  Council  of  Trent  are  by  no  means  scarce,  and  two  of  them,  of 
different  editions,  now  lie  before  me,  one  of  which  I  shall  leave  at  the 
Miscellany  office,  during  a  week  from  the  publication  of  this  letter,  so 
that  any  person  who  thinks  proper  may  satisfy  himself  of  the  correct- 
ness of  the  quoted  decree. 

I  shall  not  then  give  Pallavicini  against  Father  Paul ;  but  I  shall 
give  primary  evidence,  by  giving  from  an  authenticated  copy  of  the  acts 
of  the  Council,  "the  very  words  of  the  decree,"  taken  from  an  edition 
printed  at  Trent  in  1745,  with  the  regular  testimonies  and  licenses,  and 
moreover  found  to  agree,  upon  comparison,  with  the  various  quotations 
and  transcripts  in  all  public  documents  and  standard  works  which  re- 
garded the  same  topics,  printed  in  several  Catholic  countries,  and  with 
various  other  authenticated  printed  copies  of  the  acts  of  the  Council 
published  in  other  places. 

Extract  from  the  Decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  concerning  the  invocation,  and 
veneration  and  relics  of  Saints,  and  concerning  sacred  images,  passed  in  the 
S5th  Session,  celebrated  on  the  3d  and  4th  days  of  December,  1563. 

"Imagines  porro  Christi,  Deipara3  Virginis,  et  alionim,  sanctorum,  in  templis 
prsesertim  habendas,  et  retinendas,  eisque  debitum  honorem,  et  venerationem  imper- 
tiendam,  non  quod  credatur  inesse  aliqua  in  eis  Divinitas,  vel  virtus,  propter  quam 
Bint  colendae;  vel  quod  ab  eis  sit  aliquid  petendum,  vel  quod  fiducia  in  imaginibus 
sit  figenda:  veluti  olim  fiebat  a  Gentibus,  quaj  in  idolis  spem  suam  collocabant;  sed 
guoniam  honos,  qui  eis  exhibetur  refertur  ad  prototypa,  quae  illae  representant :  ita  ut 
per  imagines,  quas  osculamur,  et  coram  quibus  caput  aperimus  et  procumbimus 
Christum  adoramus,  et  Sanctos,  quorum  ilia;  similitudinem  gerunt,  veneremur,  id  quod 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  49 

Conciliorum,  prEesertim  vero  secundfe  Nicenaj  Synodi  decretis  contra  imaginum  oppu- 
gnatores  est  Bancitum. " 

Translation. — "Moreover,  that  the  images  of  Christ,  of  the  Virgin  Mother  of 
God  and  of  other  saints  are  to  be  kept  and  retained  especially  in  the  churches,  and 
that  due  honour  and  veneration  is  to  be  given  to  them,  not  that  it  is  to  he  believed 
that  there  is  in  them  any  divinity  or  power;  on  account  of  which  they  are  to  he 
worshipped:  or  that  any  trust  is  to  he  placed  in  images,  as  was  formerly  done  hy' 
the  Gentiles  who  placed  their  hopes  in  idols;  but  because  the  honour  which  is  shown 
to  them  is  referred  to  the  originals  which  they  represent:  so  that  through  the  images, 
which  we  Tciss,  and  in  presence  of  which  we  uncover  our  heads  and  Tcneel  down,  we 
might  adore  Christ,  and  might  venerate  the  saints,  whose  likeness  they  bear,  that 
which  has  been  sanctioned  hy  the  decrees  of  councils,  hut  especially  of  the  second 
Council  of  Nice  against  the  opposers  of  images." 

In  this  extract  I  have  marked  in  italic  letters  the  parts  omitted 
by  this  man,  who  with  such  effrontery  declared  that  "it  cannot  be  shown 
that  Father  Paul  has  not  correctly  reported  the  decrees  passed  by  this 
Council!  !  !"  Be  it  remembered,  that  the  object  of  this  writer  was  to 
show,  that  there  was  no  misrepresentation  in  charging  Roman  Catholics 
with  adoring  images,  in  like  manner  as  the  pagans  did;  and  that  in 
several  Protestant  writers,  the  overt  acts,  of  kissing,  uncovering  the 
head,  and  kneeling,  are  relied  upon  as  evidence  of  the  intention  of  adora- 
tion. Then  look  at  the  parts  omitted,  and  say  if  this  was  not  flagrant, 
unjustifiable  garbling. 

There  is,  however,  great  difference  between  even  Father  Paul  and 
your  correspondent.  The  former  did  not  undertake  nor  profess  to  give 
"the  words  of  the  decree;"  he  had  more  prudence  that  to  expose  himself 
to  the  necessary  result.  This  writer  could  not  then  have  stated  with 
truth  that  he  took  the  "words  of  the  decree"  from  the  historian,  who 
did  not  profess  to  give  them.  Father  Paul  wrote  in  Italian,  and  his 
work  was  translated  into  English  by  Sir  Nathaniel  Brent.  I  have  not 
seen  an  Italian  copy,  but  I  presume  the  English  to  be  correct,  as  both 
the  original  and  the  translation  were  procured  to  be  made  and  printed 
by  the  English  government.  The  translation  gives  no  Latin  words  of 
the  decrees,  which  were  written  in  Latin.  I  suppose,  therefore,  the 
Italian  original  gave  none:  where  then  did  your  correspondent  get  the 
Latin  which  he  gives?  It  is  evidently  taken  from  the  Latin  of  the 
original  decree,  for  the  words,  so  far  as  they  are  given,  are  the  same; 
yet  Father  Paul  does  not  give  this  Latin  ;  therefore  it  was  not  copied  from 
him:  neither  is  the  English  that  of  his  translators,  which  is  the  follow- 
ing:— 

' '  Concerning  images,  that  those  of  Christ,  of  the  Virgin,  and  of  the  saints,  ought 
to  be  kept  in  the  churches,  and  to  have  due  honour  given  them;  not  that  there  is 
any  divinity   or  virtue   in   them,   but   because   the  honour   redoundeth   to   the   thing 


50  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

represented,  Christ  and  the  saints  being  worshipped  by  the  images,  whose  similitude 
they  bear;  as  has  been  defined  by  the  Councils,  especially  in  the  second  of  Nice." 
(London  MDCLXXVI.  p.  751). 

Where  then  did  your  correspondent  get  either  his  Latin  or  his 
English?  For  it  is  pretty  clear  he  got  [them]  neither  from  Father 
Paul,  nor  from  Sir  Nathaniel  Brent.  Perhaps  Dr.  Marsh  helped  him 
from  the  attested  copy  of  the  original  acts,  out  of  which  in  the  process 
of  time,  the  moths  had  eaten  a  few  words.  But  it  is  for  your  veracious 
correspondent  to  say  why  he  fathered  the  "words  of  the  decree"  upon 
Father  Paul,  who  was  too  cunning  to  lay  himself  open  to  such  exposure. 
Perhaps  you  can  make  another  point  of  this. 

I  am,  gentlemen, 

Your  obedient,  humble  servant, 

B.  c. 


LETTER  VII. 

Turn  vero  ardemus  seitari,  et  qua3rere  causas,' 
Ignari  scelerum  tantorum,  artisque   Pelasgae. 
Prosequitur  pavitans,  et  ficto  pectore  fatur. 


Virgil,   Aeneid  II. 


Now  blind  to  Grecian  frauds,  we  burn  to  know 
With  fond  desire  the  causes  of  his  wo; 
Who  thus,  still  trembling  as  he  stood,  and  pale 
Pursued  the  moving  melancholy  tale. 

Pitt 's    Translation. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  June  13,  1829, 
To  the  Editors: 

Gentlemen: — It  is  an  extremely  unpleasant  task  to  come  in  contact 
with  a  writer  like  "Protestant  Catholic,"  not  so  much  because  of  his 
amusing  name,  but  because  of  his  multiplied  errors.  Leaving  him  to 
settle  his  differences  with  Father  Paul,  in  the  best  way  that  he  can,  I  now 
must  confront  him  with  St.  Thomas. 

He  tells  us  in  the  same  paragraph,  23,  concerning  this  holy  Doctor, — 

' '  Thomas  Aquinas,  who  wrote  several  centuries  after  the  second  Nicene  Council, 
asserted  for  the  images  of  Christ,  and  so  forth,  placed  in  the  churches,  the  direct 
worship  of  Latria;  alleging  that  the  same  acts  and  degrees  of  worship,  which  were 
due  to  the  original,  were  also  due  to  the  image;  on  the  ground,  that  to  worship  the 
image  with  any  other  act  than  that  by  which  the  original  was  worshipped,  was  to 
worship  it  on  its  own  account,  which  is  idolatry. ' ' 

They  who  are  acquainted  with  the  works  of  the  angelic  Doctor  of 
the  schools,  will  find  this  subject  treated  in  his  Summa  Theologioe,  part 
iii.  quaest  xxv.,  article  3.     Utrum  imago  Christi  sit  adoranda,  adorantione 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  51 

lairoe.  I  shall  leave  this  work  at  the  Miscellany  Office,  during  the  week 
from  the  day  of  publication  of  this  letter,  and  it  will  be  seen  by  any  per- 
son who  chooses  to  refer  to  the  article,  that  the  above  extract  contains 
five  distinct  untruths ;  for  in  the  first  place,  Thomas  Aquinas  does  not  as- 
sert for  the  images  the  direct  worship  of  Latria;  in  the  next  place,  he 
does  not  give  the  ground  here  alleged,  but  others  of  a  description  by  no 
means  like  it ;  nor  does  he  state  that  it  would  be  idolatry  to  worship  the 
image  with  any  other  act  than  that  with  which  the  original  was  worship- 
ped; nor  does  he  assert  that  it  would  be  idolatry  to  worship  it  on  its 
own  account;  nor  has  he  any  passage  which  warrants  the  and  so  forth 
after  the  word  Christ. 

The  ground  upon  which  St.  Thomas  founded  his  proposition,  is  a 
philosophical,  not  a  theological  topic,  and  upon  a  principle  laid  down 
by  Aristotle  in  the  second  chapter  of  his  book  On  3Iemory  and  Recol- 
lection; which  is  in  substance,  that  the  image  brings  to  the  mind  what 
it  was  formed  to  represent,  and,  that  the  mental  acts  regard  not  the 
materials  which  produce  the  recollection  and  excite  the  feelings,  but 
the  original  object  to  which  those  recollections  and  feelings  are  directed : 
and  St.  Thomas,  applying  this  principle  to  the  images  of  Christ,  says, 
that  since  the  memory  and  devotion  have  Christ,  and  not  the  image  for 
their  object,  the  worship  of  adoration  which  is  due  to  the  Saviour  might 
be  indirectly  paid  to  those  objects. 

Your  notable  correspondent  then  makees  an  attempt  to  place  Car- 
dinal Bellarmine  in  contradiction  to  Thomas  Aquinas,  and  for  that  pur- 
pose makes  the  following  statement. 

"On  the  other  hand,  'Ita  ut  ipsae  terminent  venerationem  ut  in  se  considerantur 
et  non  solum  ut  vicem  gerunt  exemplaris, '  the  language  of  Bellarmine,  *"  places  this 
matter  in  a  different,  but  still  a  very  perplexing  light.  His  object  is  to  vindicate 
the  Church  from  the  reproach  of  worshipping  images  with  the  worship  given  to 
God.  He  assigns  them,  therefore,  an  inferior  worship,  which  might  be  all  their 
own.     The  difficulty  is  not  thus  removed. ' ' 

In  this  reference  he  has  very  carefully  quoted  the  Latin,  and  pointed 
out  the  place :  the  chapter,  indeed,  contains  all  the  words  that  he  quoted, 
but  it  contains  others  besides,  which  he  does  not  give,  and  which  he  ought 
to  have  given,  but  which  I  shall  take  leave  to  supply. 

Two  authors  writing  upon  the  same  subject  and  viewing  it  in  the 
same  manner,  contradict  each  other,  when  one  asserts  exactly  what  the 
other  denies.  Cardinal  Bellarmine  treats  of  the  same  subjects  as  does 
St.  Thomas.  But  in  chapter  xxi.  of  book  ii.,  "On  images,"  and  so  forth, 
the  Cardinal  considers  them  without  their  being  so  completely  over- 


Bellarm.  De  Imag.  1,  2,  c.  21. 


52  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

looked,  as  that  the  mind  of  the  observer  is  altogether  occupied  with  the 
original  which  they  represent.  In  part  iii.,  quaest  25,  article  3,  St. 
Thomas  considers  them,  the  mind  being  altogether  occupied  with  the 
originals,  whose  recollection  they  excite.  They  do  not  both  here  view 
the  subject  in  the  same  manner;  they  do  not  in  fact  examine  the  same 
question.  But  in  chapter  xxiii.  of  the  same  second  book,  the  Cardinal 
takes  exactly  the  same  question  of  which  St.  Thomas  treats.  If  your 
correspondent  were  animated  by  a  spirit  of  justice  and  candour,  he 
would  have  found  in  this  chapter  the  ground  of  comparison,  and  had  he 
made  it,  he  would  have  discovered  agreement  and  not  contradiction. 
Mark  what  Bellarmine  writes  in  this  chapter  xxiii.  After  laying  down 
his  proposition,  he  gives  the  following  as  his  first  reason. 

"Ac  primum,  quod  imago  possit  coli  improprie  eo  cultu,  quo  ipsum  exemplar, 
proiatur;  nam  aliquando  imago  accipitur  pro  ipso  exemplari,  et  ea,  quae  fiere7it  circa 
ipsum  exemplar  si  adesset  praesens,  fiunt  circa  imaginem,  mente  tamen  defixa  in 
exemplari.  Sic  concionatores  alloquuntur  imaginem  crucifixi,  eique  dicunt  tu  nos 
redemisti,  tu  nos  Patri  reconciliasti ;  ista  enim  non  dicuntur  imagini,  nee  ut  lignum, 
est,  nee  ut  imago  est,  sed  ut  accipitur  loco  exemplaris,  id  est,  dicuntur  ipsi  Christo, 
eujus  tamen  imago  vicem  gerit,  quemadmodum  etiam  in  die  Parasceves  cum  crucifixus 
paulatim  detegitur,  et  ostenditur,  et  adorandus  proponitur,  ilia  omnia  per  imaginem, 
ipsi  Christo  vero  exhiberi  intelliguntur,  tunc  autem  proprie  nullus  honor  defertur 
imagini,  sed  soli  exemplari;  tamen  improprie  did  potest  ipsa  etiam  imago  honorari." 

' '  And  first,  it  is  proved,  that  an  image  might  be  worshipped,  not  on  its  own 
account,  with  the  same  homage  as  the  original,  for  sometimes,  the  image  is  looked 
upon  as  in  place  of  the  original  itself;  and  the  same  things  which  would  be  done 
regarding  that  original,  if  it  were  present,  are  done  regarding  the  image,  the  mind 
heing,  however,  fixed  firmly  upon  the  original.  Thus  preachers  address  the  image 
of  him  crucified,  and  say  to  it,  '  Thou  hast  redeemed  us,  thou  hast  reconciled  us  to 
thy  Father,'  for  these  things  are  not  said  to  the  image,  either  as  it  is  a  piece 
of  wood,  or  an  image,  but  as  it  is  looked  upon  as  being  in  the  place  of  the  original, 
that  is,  they  are  said  to  Christ  himself,  whose  place,  however,  that  image  holds; 
as  also  on  Good  Friday,  when  the  crucifix  is  gradually  uncovered,  and  exhibited 
for  adoration ;  all  those  things  are  understood  to  be  exhibited  to  Christ  through  the 
image:  then  indeed  on  its  own  account,  no  honour  is  paid  to  the  image,  but  to  the 
original  only;  but  yet,  though  not  on  its  own  account,  it  might  be  said  that  the 
image  is  honoured." 

He  next  proceeds  to  show  that  the  mind  is  also  frequently  drawn 
through  the  image  to  the  original,  so  that  this  latter  only  is  viewed,  not 
indeed  as  in  the  place  of  the  first,  but  represented  by  it,  and  if  clothed 
with  the  image :  in  such  a  case  the  image  is  adored ;  per  accidens  tamen, 
quia  ipsa  nee  est  suppositum  quod  adoratur,  ncc  ratio  adorationis,  sed 
quiddam  adjunctum,  "indirectly,  because  it  is  not  the  object  which  is 
adored,  nor  the  cause  of  adoration,  but  it  is  something  joined  to  what 
is  adored:"  he  gives  as  an  example:  when  a  king  clothed  with  his  robes 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  53 

receives  homage,  the  royal  dignity  is  the  cause  of  the  respect,  the  person 
of  the  monarch  is  directly  respected,  and  the  robes  are  indirectly  {per 
accidens)  honoured,  because  they  are  so  joined  to  him,  that  it  is  in  them 
his  person  is  seen.  So  that  the  adoration  of  Christ,  through  the  image, 
is  by  some  called  an  indirect  adoration  of  the  image  itself,  just  as  the 
homage  paid  to  the  wearer  of  the  robes,  is  said  to  be  an  indirect  homage 
of  the  robes  themselves. 

So  far  from  contradicting  St.  Thomas,  the  Cardinal  in  this  very 
chapter  in  the  paragraph  next  but  one  after  this  latter  explanation, 
mentions  the  opinion  of  this  angelic  writer,  and  after  examining  his 
statements,  shows  that  this  very  explanation  agrees  with  the  position 
laid  down  in  his  work:  and  in  chapter  xxv.,  after  stating  the  opinion 
of  St.  Thomas  and  other  writers,  as  explained  by  Gabriel,  he  adds,  quod 
si  ita  est,  omnes  convenimus,  "but  if  this  be  so,  we  all  agree." 

Thus  all  our  writers  agree  that  when  the  mind  is  carried  through 
the  image  to  the  original,  the  homage  which  is  paid  is  directed  exclusive- 
ly to  that  original,  and  by  no  means  whatever  to  the  statute  or  image 
from  which  the  mind  received  its  impression  and  direction.  The  various 
modes  of  expression  in  different  authors,  must  be  construed  by  the  gen- 
eral character  of  their  age,  and  style,  and  education;  there  will  fre- 
quently be  found  a  difference  of  phrase,  but  not  a  difference  of  senti- 
ment. Thus  the  Council  of  Trent  viewing  the  subject  in  the  same 
light  agrees  with  both  of  those  writers,  when  it  states  that  "through 
the  images"  "we  adore  Christ,  and  venerate  the  saints  whose  likeness 
they  bear." 

But  images  might  be  considered  in  another  light,  viz.,  as  they  are 
memorials  of  their  prototypes  or  originals.  In  this  view  they  are  more 
than  their  materials,  but  less  than  their  originals:  as  the  statute  of 
General  Washington,  at  Raleigh,  is  more  than  a  mere  block  of  marble, 
more  than  a  mere  work  of  art;  but,  certainly  far  less  than  the  father 
of  our  country.  No  American,  with  well  regulated  feelings,  would  treat 
the  Apollo  Belvidere  with  equal  attachment  as  he  would  this  production 
of  Canova,  though  as  a  work  of  art,  the  Apollo  is  more  excellent.  Place 
them  side  by  side,  and  the  citizen  who  looks  with  mere  admiration  at 
the  one,  will  feel  something  like  affection  for  the  other.  It  was  not  a 
mere  regard  for  the  image  as  a  work  of  art,  but  that  regard  blended  with 
respect  and  love  for  the  memory  of  the  great  original,  that  urged  the 
legislature  of  North  Carolina  in  1821  to  pass  the  following  statute. 

"Chapter  1088.  An  act  making  it  an  indictable  offence  to  injure 
or  deface  the  Statute  of  General  Washington. 

"Be  it  enacted,  and  so  forth,  That  if  any  person  or  persons  here- 


54  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

inafter  shall  knowingly  spit  upon,  or  in  any  way  stain  or  designedly  in- 
jure, or  in  any  manner  deface  the  Statute  of  General  Washington, 
erected  by  the  General  Assembly  of  this  State,  he,  she,  or  they  shall  be 
guilty  of  an  indictable  offence,  and,  upon  conviction,  shall  be  fined  and 
imprisoned  at  the  discretion  of  the  court  before  whom  the  trial  may  be 
had. ' ' — Taylor 's  Bevisal.    page  18. 

Thus  family  pictures  and  images,  are  memorials  which  naturally 
create  a  claim  upon  the  affections,  even  viewed  in  themselvees  and  with- 
out actual  recollection  of  their  originals.  Cardinal  Bellarmine  in  chap- 
ter xxi.  of  book  ii,  views  the  images  in  this  light,  and  says  that  as  such, 
they  do  deserve  from  us  properly  and  on  their  own  account,  as  memorials 
of  Christ,  and  so  forth,  a  proper  veneration :  but  not  adoration,  or  latria. 
His  proposition  is  in  the  following  words ;  I  print  in  Roman  letters  the 
parts  omitted  by  your  correspondent. 

"Imagines  Christi,  et  sanctorum  venerandae  sunt  non  solum  per  accidens,  vel 
improprie,  sed  itiam  per  se  proprie,  ita  ut  ipsae  terminent  venerationem,  ut  in  ee 
considerantur,  et  non  solum  ut  vicem  gerunt  exemplaris." 

' '  The  images  of  Christ  and  of  the  saints  are  to  be  venerated  not  only  indirectly, 
or  improperly  speaking,  but  properly  on  their  own  account:  so  as  that  the  veneration 
terminates  in  them,  considered  as  ivhat  they  really  are,  and  not  only  as  they  hold' 
the  place  of  the  originals." 

In  this  light  also,  as  the  Cardinal  remarks,  they  were  viewed  by  the 
second  Council  of  Nice  when  it  forbid  them  to  be  worshipped  with  latria 
or  adoration ;  but  stated  that  they  ought  to  be  venerated  with  the  same 
respect  which  is  paid  to  the  book  of  the  gospels,  to  the  holy  vessels,  such 
as  the  chalice,  the  pix,  and  so  forth.  Such  as  was  paid  to  the  ark  of 
the  covenant  with  the  images  of  cherubim,  and  so  forth,  in  the  old  law. 
Yet,  still,  in  the  same  chapter,  Bellarmine  remarks,  that  the  veneration 
paid  to  the  image  is  because  of  the  sanctity  of  the  original,  so  that  though 
respect  be  directly  given  to  the  representation,  its  cause  is  found  in  what 
is  represented.  If  you  will  take  the  trouble  of  looking  into  St.  Thomas 
2nda  2ge.  qujBst.  article  ii.,  you  will  find  that  he  takes  a  wide  distinc- 
tion between  the  images  of  Christ  and  those  of  the  saints;  and  keeping 
this  distinction  in  mind,  turn  over  to  3tia.  quest,  xxv.  article  iii.,  for  the 
image  of  Christ,  and  article  v.,  for  the  principle  respecting  the  images 
of  the  saints,  by  analogy  from  the  answers  regarding  their  relics, — you 
will  find  how  completely  he  agrees  with  Bellarmine,  and  with  the  second 
Council  of  Nice,  which  was  held  540  years  before  his  birth,  and  with  the 
Council  of  Trent,  which  was  assembled  about  260  years  after  his  death. 

I  shall  now  state  our  doctrine,  which  your  correspondent  has  en- 
deavoured to  perplex.  1.  Christ  ought  to  be  adored,  because  he  is 
God.     2.     The  saints  are  not  to  be   adored,   for  they   are  not   Gods. 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  55 

3.  But  as  the  holy  friends  of  God,  they  deserve  from  us  the  homage 
of  our  religious  respect,  honour,  and  esteem.  4.  An  image  of  Christ, 
•  or  of  a  saint  has  no  inherent  sanctity,  yet  viewed  as  a  memorial  of  Christ 
or  of  the  saint,  it,  on  that  account,  derives  from  its  connexion  with  the 
original  which  it  represents,  an  intrinsic  value  which  makes  it  venerable 
and  respectable;  yet  it  is  not  when  viewed  in  that  light  to  receive  the 
same  homage,  that  the  original  deserves.  5.  But  it  frequently  happens 
that  in  contemplating  the  image,  the  mind  is  carried  altogether  to  the 
original,  and  the  homage  due  to  Christ  or  to  the  saint  is  then  paid  direct- 
ly to  our  Redeemer,  or  to  his  friend,  but  through  the  image,  which  is, 
thus  indirectly  to  receive  the  homage  due  to  the  original.  Such  is  the 
doctrine  of  the  two  councils  and  the  two  writers  whom  ' '  Protestant  Cath- 
olic ' '  has  misrepresented.  It  is  very  easy  for  a  man  to  create  confusion, 
and  then  to  complain  of  its  existence.  Such  has  been  the  unbecoming 
conduct  of  the  writer  who  complains  of  a  "perplexing  light"  produced 
by  his  own  shiftings. 

But  I  have  not  yet  cleared  away  all  his  misrepresentations,  in  this 
second  essay.  In  paragraph  24,  he  confines  himself  to  "the  images  or 
pictures  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  other  Saints."  And  this  he  inserts 
within  crotchets,  as  if  it  were  a  quotation.  From  what  does  he  quote  it? 
The  creed  of  Pope  Pius  has,  even  upon  his  own  showing,  in  paragraph 
23,  "the  images  of  Christ  of  the  Mother  of  God,  ever  Virgin,  and  of 
the  other  saints."  I  have  marked  in  italics  in  each  phrase,  the  words 
omitted  in  the  other.  Could  it  be  from  what  he  calls  "the  words  of  the 
decree?"  I  shall  exhibit  his  crotcheted  sentence  and  what  he  says 
he  copied  from  Father  Paul,  "the  images  or  pictures  of  the  Virgin 
Mary  and  other  saints" — "the  images  of  Christ,  the  Virgin  Mary  and 
the  saints."  Father  Paul  omitted  the  word  other  before  saints,  that 
he  might  leave  room  thus  to  exhibit  us  as  believing  that  the  blessed  Vir- 
gin was  not  one  of  that  class :  when  it  suited  your  curious  correspondent 's 
purpose  in  giving  "the  words  of  the  decree"  he  omits  it,  I  should  sup- 
pose for  the  same  object :  but  now,  in  paragraph  24,  he  seeks  another 
object  to  attain  which  that  word  other  is  introduced,  and  the  word  Christ 
is  ommitted.  I  shall  now  state  facts,  and  I  think  I  need  scarcely  make 
an  inference  to  exhibit  the  dishonesty    of  intention. 

In  paragraph  23,  the  writer  states  that  "Thomas  Aquinas  asserted 
for  the  images  of  Christ,  and  so  forth,  placed  in  churches  the  direct 
worship  of  Latria,^'  the  and  so  forth,  placed  after  the  word  Christ  evi- 
dently conveys  an  idea  of  some  adjunct,  and  the  reader  naturally  asks 
what  that  adjunct  is.  And  as  naturally  concludes  it  must  be  what  fol- 
lowed the  word  Christ  in  the  two  former  passages  which  is,  "of  the 


56  DOCTRINE  Vol. 


Virgin  Mary  and  the  saints,"  so  that  without  printing  the  proposition 
at  full  length,  the  and  so  forth  leads  him  to  believe  that  Thomas  Aquinas 
asserted  the  direct  worship  of  Latria  for  the  images  not  only  of  Christ, 
but  also  of  the  Virgin  and  of  the  other  saints.  With  this  fact  before  the 
reader,  it  now  becomes  necessary  to  inform  him,  that  so  far  from  making 
this  assertion,  St.  Thomas  of  Aquin  distinctly  excludes  the  images  of 
the  saints  from  that  worship  which  he  asserts  for  the  images  of  Christ !  ! 
There  was  a  great  clamour  raised  in  England,  in  1640,  about  the  insid- 
ious nature  of  an  and  so  forth  which  the  convocation  introduced  in  their 
sixth  canon,  at  the  end  of  a  clause  in  an  oath  tendered  to  the  clergy; 
of  which  the  poet  Cleveland  writes : 

"I  cannot  half  untruss 
Et  coetera,  it  is  so  dbominous." 

In  paragraph  24,  omitting  all  mention  of  the  images  of  Christ,  he 
merely  mentions  what  his  and  so  forth  unwarrantably  introduced,  to- 
gether with  what  he  now  introduces  for  the  first  time,  pictures,  and  he 
asserts  that  to  "the  images  or  pictures  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  other 
saints,"  "we  are  required  to  give  in  our  churches"  "due  honour  and 
veneration, ' '  and  the  religious  honour  due  to  them  is  by  some  of  our  own 
writers  considered  to  be  Latria,  honor  sive  cultus  soli  Deo  exhihendus, 
"the  worship  or  honour  due  to  God  alone."  Not  one  of  our  writers 
ever  was  guilty  of  such  blasphemous  nonsense.  And  yet  I  have  little 
doubt  but  that  the  person  who  had  the  hardihood,  and  so  forth  .... 
to  publish  this,  is  looked  upon  as  a  holy  and  zealous  man  !  !  !  The  miser- 
able little  compilation,  which  gave  rise  to  this  discussion,  was  innocence  it- 
self when  compared  with  a  production  like  this.  Mark  the  gross  folly 
which  is  imputed  to  us !  We  are  made  to  say  that  Latria,  ' '  adoration ' '  is 
due  only  to  God,  and  in  the  same  breath  to  say  that  it  is  due  also  to  the 
image  of  a  saint ! !  I  feel  degraded  at  being  brought  to  examine  such  a 
libel  upon  common  sense,  as  well  as  upon  common  religion,  and  common 
honesty.  I  address  you  as  gentlemen ;  Editors  of  the  Gospel  Messenger, 
do  you  not  blush  at  having  permitted  this  to  soil  your  pages? 

His  next  assertion  is,  that  others  of  our  writers  state,  that  this 
religious  honour  due  to  "the  images  or  pictures  of  the  Virgin  Mary, 
and  other  saints"  is  didia,  or  the  honour,  or  worship,  or  service,  which 
is  paid  to  man  by  reason  of  some  dignity,  holiness,  virtue  or  goodness: 
or,  as  the  words  of  Aquinas  thus  literally  rendered,  define  it,  honor, 
vel  cidtus,  vel  servitus  quae  exhihetur  homini,  ratione  alien  jus  dignita- 
tis, sanctitatis,  virtutis,  vel  honitatis. 

Who  those  other  writers  are,  he  does  not  state.  Yet  I  shall  not 
therefore  say  he  has  invented  it.     I  have  no  hesitation  in  admitting  that 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  57 

what  he  describes  as  dulia,  is  such  homage  as  we  believe  might  be  law- 
fully paid  to  the  saints ;  and  that,  if  not  the  image  itself,  but  the  saint 
through  the  image,  be  considered,  this  assertion  of  his  might  be  admitted ; 
and  in  this  sense  some  of  our  writers  do  allow  it  can  be  used.  I  shall 
also  state,  that  I  cannot  find  in  the  Sum  of  St.  Thomas,  which  I  have 
carefully  examined,  that  definition  of  dulia  which  he  exhibits  as  "the 
words  of  Aquinas,  thus  literally  rendered  define  it."  Yet  I  admit  it 
to  be  sufficiently  correct.  As  his  edition  of  Thomas  Aquinas  differs 
so  widely  from  those  to  which  I  have  recourse,  I  shall  describe  these 
latter.  One  is  a  thick  folio,  1  vol.,  Parisiis,  mdcxxxix,  and  the  other 
18  volumes,  12mo,  Patavii,  mdcclx. 

In  paragraph  25,  he  appears  to  stand  upon  more  solid  ground.  He 
had  hitherto  been  only  constructing  gradually  what  he  now  rests  upon 
with  confidence.  "In  his  adoration,  then,  this  due  honour  and  venera- 
tion given  to  the  images  of  the  virgin  mother  of  God,  and  the  saints," 
in  their  churches,  do  Roman  Catholics  "violate  the  second  of  God's  com- 
mandments?" Here  is  then  a  bold,  unqualified  assertion  openly  made  of 
what  has  been  distinctly  contradicted  by  all  our  writers,  that  we  adore 
the  images  of  the  Virgin  Mary  and  other  saints.  Upon  what  ground 
does  he  make  it?  His  first  assertion  was  correct,  that  we  believe  "that 
images  of  Christ,  of  the  mother  of  God,  ever  virgin,  and  of  other  saints, 
were  to  receive  due  honour  and  veneration. ' '  He  stated,  and  truly,  that 
this  was  founded  upon  a  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent;  that  decree  laid 
down  that  they  were  not  to  be  worshipped,  because  of  a  belief  that  there 
was  any  divinity  in  them,  nor  was  any  trust  to  be  placed  in  them,  as  the 
Gentiles  placed  trust  in  their  idols,  but  Christ  was  to  be  adored  through 
the  image :  the  honour  shown  the  image  was  to  be  referred  to  Christ,  the 
original,  who  was  really,  truly,  and  properly  adored,  because  he  is  God : 
the  honour  shown  to  the  images  of  the  blessed  Virgin  and  other  saints 
was  to  be  referred  to  their  originals,  the  saints,  who  were  venerated,  not 
adored.  Here,  then,  the  Council  gave  us  two  classes  and  two  acts: 
Christ  to  be  adored,  and  the  Virgin  and  other  saints  to  be  venerated. 
The  first  dishonesty  was  in  making  three  classes,  instead  of  those  two. 
Father  Paul  omitted  the  word  other,  by  which  the  Virgin  and  other 
saints  were  shown  to  belong  to  one  class,  and  gives  us  only  the  words, 
"the  images  of  Christ,  of  the  Virgin,  and  of  saints,"  so  as  to  destroy 
the  classification  of  the  Council.  The  next  dishonesty  was  also  that  of 
Father  Paul,  in  omitting  the  two  verbs  used  by  the  Council — adore,  which 
referred  to  Christ,  and  the  verb  venerate,  relating  to  the  saints,  and  by 
substituting  a  generic  verb,  which  embraces  adore  and  venerate,  viz., 
worship;  and  thus,  by  this  trick,  was  the  distinction  of  the  Council  de- 


58  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

stroyed.  Your  correspondent  is  next  guilty  of  misrepresenting  the 
words  of  St.  Thomas  of  Aquin,  who  states  that,  through  the  image  of 
Christ,  "adoration"  or  latria  might  be  paid  to  Christ  himself,  who  is 
God;  and  distinguished  his  image  from  that  of  the  saints,  to  whom  no 
adoration  was  due,  nor  was  any  due  to  their  images.  It  would  be  too 
glaring  a  forgery  to  insert  "the  words"  which  his  work  did  not  contain; 
but  the  adding  of  an  and  so  forth,  under  the  special  circumstances  of 
the  case,  answered  the  same  purpose,  and  was  unwarrantably  recurred 
to.  The  effect  of  this  trick  was  to  go  a  step  farther  than  Father  Paul 
did,  who  merely  exhibited  the  Council  teaching  that  all  those  images 
were  to  be  worshipped ;  but  your  correspondent,  undertaking  to  show  the 
meaning  of  the  verb  worship,  exhibits  St.  Thomas  teaching  that  they  are 
to  be  adored  with  Latria,  or  the  adoration  due  to  God  alone.  The  next 
piece  of  dishonesty  consists  in  omitting  the  word  Christ  in  the  conclu- 
sion, which  was  the  only  word  with  which  adoration  was  conjoined  in  the 
premises,  and  keeping  adoration,  and  making  it  now  agree  with  pictures, 
which  were  not  in  any  part  of  the  premises,  and  images  of  the  saints, 
with  which  it  was  not  connected  by  any  true  assertion  in  the  premises, 
but  to  which  it  was  unfairly  connected  by  the  studied  equivocation  of 
substituting  the  generic  verb  worship  by  Father  Paul,  and  the  dishonest 
attempt  of  showing  from  St.  Thomas,  that  worship  meant  "adoration," 
latria.  This  process  reminds  me  of  a  French  distich,  which  I  recollect 
somewhat  imperfectly ;  and  a  better  Eastern  scholar,  perhaps,  can  supply 
the  old  Arabic  word,  which  has  totally  escaped  my  memory,  but  for  which 
I  give  a  substitute,  almacra,  which  is  not  very  unlike  the  true  one. — The 
poet  is  criticising  a  Spanish  writer,  who  derived  the  Spanish  word  ca- 
hallo,  "a  horse,"  from  the  Arabic  one  for  the  same  animal. 

"Caballo  vient  A' Almacra,  sans  doute, 

Mais  il  y  a  ete  bien  change  dans  sa  route." 

"Catallo  is  derived  from  Almarca,  -vrithout  doubt. 

But  it  has  been  strangely  metamorphosed  on  its  route." 

As  Sancho  would  say,  "the  mother  that  bore  it,  would  not  know 
it."  Indeed,  gentlemen,  we  can  scarcely  ever  recognise  our  own  doc- 
trines in  your  dresses.  Your  writers  might  be  very  good  poets,  but  with 
both  our  hands  we  vote  against  their  claim  to  be  admitted  as  historians. 

I  shall  now  try  your  curious  correspondent  by  a  few  of  his  own 
assertions,  versus  a  few  of  his  own  assertions ;  and  leave  to  you  and  him- 
self to  determine  which  is  the  true  Sosio. 

"Now  the  honour  and  veneration  of  the  images  of  Christ,  and  so  forth,  thus 
provided  for  by  the  highest  authority  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  as  indispensably 
obligatory,  we  know  to  be  held  and  taught  in  that  church  to  be  not  such  as  is  due 
to  God."— (Par.  23,  p.  74,  March.) 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  59 

"They  are  required  to  give  them  (the  images  or  pictures  of  the  Virgin  Mary, 
and  other  saints)  in  their  churches,  'due  honor  and  veneration;'  and  the  religious 
honour  due  to  them  is  considered  by  some  of  their  own  writers  to  be  Latria  'honor 
sive  cultus  soli  Deo  exhibendus,'  the  worship  or  honour  to  be  given  to  God  alone." — 
(Par.  24,  p.  75,  March.) 

"The  second  was  treated  as  a  continuation  of  its  subject  prohibiting  the  worship 
of  image  gods;  and  as  images  were  not  worshipped  as  gods  by  the  church." — (Par, 
25,  p.  76,  March.) 

' '  Venite  adoremus  is  the  express  language  of  the  Boman  Missal :  Come,  let  us 
adore.  Thou  shalt  not  adore  nor  serve  them,  is  the  language  of  their  translation  of 
Scripture.  Koman  Catholics  will  say  they  are  not  served;  will  they  say  that  they 
are  not  adored?  The  language  of  the  passage,  as  quoted  by  themselves,  adore  not 
serve,  not  adore  and  serve." — (Note  to  par.  25,  p.  76.) 

Now,  good  gentlemen,  if  our  writers,  to  the  knowledge  of  this  man, 
required  for  those  images  the  honour  to  be  given  to  God  alone,  how 
could  he  know  that  our  Church  held  and  taught  that  it  was  not  honour 
such  as  is  due  God? 

To  this  I  may  add  another  paragraph. 

"The  second  Council  of  Nice,  A.  D.  786,  which  is  referred  to  by  the  Council 
of  Trent  on  this  subject,  did  assert  the  direct  worship  of  images;  declaring,  at  the 
same  time,  that  it  should  not  be  Latria,  which  is  due  only  to  God,  but  merely  au 
honorary  adoration." — (Par.  23,  p.  74,  March.) 

In  my  last  letter  I  enumerated  twelve  propositions  upon  which  he 
and  I  appeared  to  be  fully  agreed,  and  I  showed  in  his  essay  the  grounds 
for  my  assertion  that  he  taught  those  propositions.  Allow  me,  there- 
fore, to  use  them  as  his  assertions,  and  to  continue  the  contrast. 

''First.  That  Roman  Catholics  pay  to  the  one  only  God  of  the 
Scriptures  a  purer  worship  than  they  pay  to  any  other  being." 

"Second.  That  the  worship  which  they  pay  to  this  God  is  a  kind 
which  is  given  exclusively  to  him,  and  which  we  call  adoration,  to  diS' 
tinguish  it  from  any  other." 

"Christians  under  the  denomination  of  Roman  Catholics,  like  other 
Christians,  worship  the  one  true  God  of  the  Scriptures.  But  their 
Church  has  authorized  a  use  of  images  in  their  places  of  worship,  that 
would  make  a  certain  kind  of  worship  paid  to  them  consistent  with  the 
purer  and  exclusive  homage  which  Jehovah  demands  for  himself." — 
(Par.  23,  p.  73,  March.) 

"Do  Catholics,  then,  thus  dishonour  Christ,  the  only  mediator,  and 
by  giving  to  creatures  the  worship  due  to  God  alone,  make  themselves 
guilty  of  direct  idolatry?  To  Protestants  it  cannot  but  appear  that 
they  do."— (Par.  9,  p.  49,  February.) 

' '  That  they  who  use  such  worship  as  that  of  which  I  have  adduced 
the  several  specimens  selected,  give  to  the  creatures  the  worship  due  to 


60  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

God  alone,  will  not,  at  first  view,  admit  of  question ;  nor  is  it  easy,  even 
on  a  closer  consideration  of  the  matter,  to  separate  the  reproach  of  direct 
idolatry  from  prayer  addressed  in  the  same  litany  to  God  and  to  the 
many  canonized  saints,  arbitrarily  determined  to  be  capable  of  hearing 
and  answering  prayer,  and  as  arbitrarily  pronounced  to  be  the  blessed 
attendants  of  the  Divine  presence."— (Par.  9,  p.  50,  February.) 

I  shall  at  present  adduce  but  one  or  two  other  passages.  I  first 
give  two  propositions  from  my  last  letter,  as  containing  his  assertions. 

"Fourth.  That  there  are  different  and  distinct  degrees  of  religious 
worship. 

"Fifth.  That  however  erroneous  Roman  Catholics  might  be,  in 
their  appendages  of  the  worship  of  one  only  God,  of  which  the  worship 
of  images  is  one,  there  is  a  wide  distinction  to  be  taken  between  them 
and  those  who  worship  fictitious  deities,  in  idols  in  which  they  may  be 
supposed  to  reside." 

"His  dulia  might  be  an  inferior  worship:  but  if  it  was  worship  at 
all  it  was  idolatry."— (Par.  23,  p.  75,  March.) 

' '  And  the  religious  honour  due  to  them  is  considered  by  some  of  their 
own  writers  to  be  Latvia,  the  worship  or  honour  to  be  given  to  God 
alone;  by  others  dulia,  or  the  honour,  or  worship,  or  service  which  is 
paid  to  man  by  reason  of  some  dignity,  holiness,  virtue  or  goodness." — 
(Par.  24,  p.  75,  March.) 

This  is  rather  a  bold  stroke,  where  we  are  told  that  there  are  de- 
grees of  worship  superior  and  inferior;  and  that  to  give  any  worship 
at  all  is  idolatry,  whether  it  be  the  worship  due  to  God,  or  paid  to  man. 
The  exhibition  which  I  give  here  is  not  by  way  of  refutation.  It  is 
merely  to  ask  your  correspondent  to  reconcile  his  own  assertions,  as 
consistency  is  creditable.  When  he  has  disposed  of  these  I  have  a  few 
more  at  his  service.  I  merely  threw  them  in  now,  to  fill  my  sheet,  as 
I  wish  to  leave  untouched  the  next  subjects,  in  treating  of  which,  I  must 
show  how  very  widely  different  are  his  notions  of  mythology  and  of 
theology  from  those  of,  gentlemen, 

Your  obedient,  humble  servant, 

B.  c. 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  61 

LETTER  VIII. 

Iris!  descend  and  what  we  here  ordain 

Report  to  yon  mad  tyrant  of  the  main. 

Bid  him  from  fight  to  his  own  deeps  repair, 

Or  breathe  from  slaughter  in  the  fields  of  air. 

If  he  refuse,  then  let  him  timely  weigh 

Our  elder  birthright,  and  superior  sway. 

"What  means  the  haughty  sovereign  of  the  skies?" 

The  King  of  Ocean  thus,  incensed,  replies; 

' '  Rule  as  he  will  his  portioned  realms  on  high, 

No  vassal  god,  nor  of  his  train,  am  I. 

Three  brother  deities  from  Saturn  came, 

And  ancient  Rhea,  Earth's  immortal  dame: 

Assign 'd  by  lot,  our  triple  rule  we  know; 

Infernal  Pluto  sways  the  shades  below; 

O'er  the  wide  clouds,  and  o'er  the  starry  plain, 

Ethereal  Jove  extends  his  high  domain; 

My  court  beneath  the  hoary  waves  I  keep, 

And  hush  the  roarings  of  the  sacred  deep: 

Olympus  and  this  earth  in  common  lie; 

What  claim  has  here  the  tyrant  of  the  sky?" 

Pope's  Iliad,  Book  xv. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  June  20,  1829. 
To  the  Editors: 

Gentlemen : — Since  much  of  what  follows  in  the  essay  of  your  cor- 
respondent, must  be  explained  by  a  reference  to  the  precepts  regarding 
idolatry,  which  were  given  by  the  Almighty  to  the  Israelites,  and  of 
course  to  the  nature  of  that  worship  itself,  probably  it  will  save  much 
time  and  trouble,  and  tend  to  give  us  more  clear  notions  upon  the  sub- 
jects of  which  we  treat,  should  we  at  once  investigate  the  nature  of  pagan 
idolatry. 

Your  correspondent  informs  us,  paragraph  27,  That  he  has  abundant 
evidence  that  the  Council  of  Trent  misrepresented  the  heathens:  and 
refers  to  the  Iliad,  the  Aeneid  and  the  Pantheon,  in  support  of  his  asser- 
tion, which  is  contrary  to  that  of  the  council.  Probably  we  may  yet 
discover  better  authority  than  either  of  those  works.  I  shall  in  the  first 
place  give  the  statement  of  St.  Thomas  of  Aquin,  respecting  the  nature 
of  pagan  idolatry,  and  any  person  who  doubts  the  accuracy  of  my  trans- 
lation, can,  by  applying  at  the  Miscellany  Office,  consult  the  original. 

"It  is  to  be  said,  as  was  before  stated,  that  an  undue  excess  in  the  mode  df 
divine  worship  is  to  be  classed  under  the  head  of  superstition.  But  this  is  princi- 
pally done  when  divine  worship  is  bestowed  on  that  to  which  it  ought  not  to  be 
given :  but,  as  we  previously  observed  when  we  treated  of  religion,  this  divine  worship 


62  ^  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

ought  to  be  given  only  to  the  supreme,  uncreated  God.  And  therefore,  it  is  super- 
stitious to  bestow  it  upon  any  creature  whatever.  But  since  worship  is  paid  to  God 
by  some  sensible  signs,  for  instance  by  sacrifices,  exhibitions,  and  others  of  this  sort: 
so  also  it  is  used  to  be  given  to  a  creature  represented  by  some  sensible  form  or 
figure,  which  is  called  an  idol.  Yet  this  divine  worship  was  given  in  various  ways 
to  idols. 

"Some  persons  indeed,  by  a  certain  wicked  art,  constructed  a  sort  of  images, 
which  by  the  power  of  devils  had  certain  effects:  whence  people  thought  that  in  the 
images  themselves  there  was  some  divinity;  and  consequently  that  divine  worship  was 
due  to  them.  And  this  was  the  opinion  of  Hermes  Trismegistus,  as  Augustine  says 
in  his  book  viii,  Of  the  City  of  God. 

"Others  did  not  pay  the  worship  of  the  Divinity  to  the  images  themselves,  but 
to  the  creatures  whose  images  they  were.  And  the  Apostle  touches  each  of  those. 
(Earn,  i.)  "And  they  changed  the  glory  of  the  incorruptible  God,  into  the  likeness 
of  the  image  of  a  corruptible  man,  and  of  birds,  and  of  fourfooted  beasts,  and  of 
creeping  things. ' '  And  as  regards  the  second,  he  adds,  ' '  and  worshipped  and  served 
the  creature  rather  than  the  Creator."  The  opinions  of  those  were  of  three  sorts. 
Some  indeed  thought  that  certain  men  whom  they  worshipped  through  their  images, 
were  gods;  such  as  Jupiter,  Mercury,  and  such  others.  But  some  persons  thought 
that  the  whole  world  was  one  God,  not  by  reason  of  its  bodily  substance,  but,  by 
reason  of  a  soul  which  they  thought  was  God;  saying  that  God  was  nothing  else  but 
a  soul  governing  the  world  by  motion  and  reason:  as  man  is  said  to  be  wise  by 
reason  of  his  soul,  not  by  reason  of  his  body.  Whence,  they  thought  the  worship  of 
the  divinity  should  be  paid  to  the  whole  world,  and  to  all  its  parts;  to  the  heavens, 
to  the  air,  to  the  waters  and  to  all  other  portions  of  this  description.  And  to  these, 
as  Varro  said,  they  used  to  refer  the  names  and  the  images  of  their  gods;  and  as 
Augustine  relates  in  his  seventh  book.  On  the  City  of  God. 

"But  others,  to  wit,  the  Platonists,  laid  down  that  there  was  one  supreme  God 
as  the  cause  of  all  things:  after  whom  they  placed,  that  there  were  certain  spiritual 
substances  created  by  the  supreme  God,  which  they  called  gods,  by  reason  of  their 
participation  of  the  divinity,  but  we  call  them  angels.  After  whom,  they  placed 
the  souls  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  and  under  those  demons,  who  were,  they  said, 
certain  airy  animals,  and  under  those  they  placed  the  souls  of  men,  which  through 
the  merit  of  virtue,  they  believed  to  be  assumed  to  the  fellowship  of  gods  or  of 
demons;  and  they  paid  the  worship  of  the  divinity  to  all  those,  as  Augustine  relates 
in  his  book  viii.    Of  the  City  of  God. 

"But  they  said  that  these  two  last  opinions  belonged  to  physical  theology, 
which  the  philosophers  considered  in  the  world,  and  taught  in  the  schools.  But 
they  said  that  the  other,  regarding  the  worship  of  men,  belonged  to  fabulous  theology, 
which  according  to  the  feigning  of  the  poets  was  represented  in  the  theatres.  But 
the  other  opinion  concerning  images,  they  said  belonged  to  civil  theology,  which 
was  celebrated  by  the  pontiffs  in  the  temples.  But  all  these  belonged  to  the  super- 
stition of  idolatry,  whence  Augustine  says,  in  his  second  book,  'Of  the  doctrine  of 
Christ,'  All  this  is  superstitious,  whatsoever  has  been  instituted  by  men  to  make  and 
worship  idols,  leading  to  worship,  or  worshipping  as  God,  any  creature,  or  the  part 
of  any  creature." — 2da  2d8e,  qusest.  xciv.  art.  1. 

The  authority  to  which  the  angelic  doctor  of  the  school  refers  in 
the  above  extract,  is  principally  that  of  St.  Augustine,  Bishop  of  Hippo, 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  63 

who  flourished  in  the  decline  of  the  fourth  and  the  commencement  of 
the  fifth  ages.  He  lived  at  a  time,  and  amongst  associates  that  still 
afforded  him  opportunities  of  learning  from  personal  observation,  facts 
which  are  to  us  now  only  the  subject  of  remote  history:  his  father  was 
a,  pagan,  and  so  were  several  of  his  companions  and  friends :  and  pre- 
viously to  his  becoming  a  Christian,  Augustine  himself  occupied  an 
eminent  place  as  an  erudite  and  respectable  scholar  and  rhetorician. 
He  informs  us  himself  that  his  work  Of  the  City  of  God  was  com- 
piled as  a  reply  to  the  pagans  who  endeavoured  to  attribute  to  Chris- 
tianity the  destruction  of  Rome  by  Alaric.  This  work  occupied  some 
years  of  his  life :  and  in  it  he  enters  deeply  into  the  errors  of  paganism, 
for  the  purpose  of  exhibiting  not  only  its  contrast  to  Christianity,  but 
its  folly  and  criminality.  It  was  published  in  the  midst  of  pagans,  and 
when  several  eminent  scholars  warmly  advocated  the  mythological  prac- 
tices and  the  ancient  philosophy.  I  therefore  rely  on  its  statements  as 
deserving  the  highest  credit.  It  is  too  late  now,  after  the  lapse  of  several 
centuries,  for  the  republic  of  letters  to  be  insulted  by  setting  up  the 
Iliad  and  the  Aeneid,  and  the  Pantheon  as  equivalent  to  the  testimony 
of  such  a  writer.  They  indeed  give  us  the  fabulous  theologly  or  mytho- 
logy of  the  poets;  but  this  is  only  one,  and  the  least  useful  subdivision 
of  the  information  required  to  enable  any  person  correctly  to  judge 
of  the  true  nature  of  the  religion  of  the  people  themselves.  You  might 
just  as  well  refer  to  Tasso's  Jerusalem,  Milton's  Paradise,  and  the  Lusiad 
of  Camoens,  to  know  the  exact  nature  of  the  Christian  doctrine.  0 !  it 
is  sickening  to  behold  the  intoxicated  conceit  of  those  who  have  been 
forced  in  childhood  to  sip  the  shallow  draughts,  boastingly  brought  by 
meagre  empirics,  from  the  stream  of  knowledge !  What  a  contrast  is 
exhibited  in  the  calm,  dignified,  and  consistent  demeanour  of  the  sages, 
whose  lives  have  been  spent  under  the  shadow  of  those  venerable  oaks 
that  surround  the  fountain.  One  views  in  astonishment  the  collection  of 
splendid  and  accurate  charts  that  have  been  flung  aside  in  the  spirit 
of  overweening  pride,  by  the  hardy  and  courageous  adventures,  who 
infected  with  the  mania  of  indiscriminate  reform,  launch  out  as  stran- 
gers, upon  an  ocean  which  has  been  navigated  for  ages.  And  what  name 
shall  we  bestow  upon  those  supercilious  looks  with  which  they  regard 
the  persons  who  use  information  of  facts  collected  by  their  predecessors  ? 
St.  Augustine  shows  in  this  work,  that  the  pagans  were  all  poly- 
theists,  if  not  in  belief,  certainly  in  practice:  he  shows  that  even  the 
followers  of  Plato  paid  divine  honours  to  created  spirits,  whom  they 
called  gods,  and  clearly  shows  that  Cicero  was  a  polytheist,  though  he 
condemned  the  extravagance  and  absurdity  of  the  civil  as  well  as  the 


64  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

mythological  ritual.  Besides  this,  he  shows  that  when  the  pagans  wor- 
shipped their  gods  through  images,  they  paid  divine  honour  to  created 
beings,  and  though  the  adoration  should  not  have  been  directed  to  the 
image  itself,  yet  being  directed  to  a  creature;  and  generally  that  crea- 
ture was  a  devil,  or  some  wicked  mortal,  the  act  was  highly  criminal. 
There  is  another  class  of  pagans  also  exhibited,  which  paid  the  divine 
honours  to  the  image  itself,  by  reason  of  some  divinity  which  they  be- 
lieved to  be  residing  therein  as  in  a  body  after  its  consecration,  and  this 
divinity  was  either  an  imaginary  being,  a  devil,  or  a  deceased  human 
being,  w'hich  they  believed  to  be  invoked  to  occupy,  or  evoked  to  desert 
the  image.  Towards  the  close  of  his  eighth  book,  he,  in  chapter  xxvii., 
finely  vindicates  the  Christian  honour  of  the  martyrs  and  of  their  re- 
mains, contrasting  the  veneration  which  is  shown  to  them  with  the  divine 
honours  which  pagans  paid  to  their  imaginary  deities. 

In  order  then  to  come  to  distinct  and  satisfactory  notions  of  the 
true  nature  of  idolatry,  I  had  better  hastily  view  the  origin  of  this  crime. 
It  is  clear  that  in  the  days  of  Noe,  the  family,  of  which  he  was  the  head, 
and  from  which  the  human  race  is  derived,  had  an  accurate  knowledge 
of  God,  and  of  the  worship  which  should  be  paid  to  him.  It  is  also  clear 
that  at  the  period  of  the  erection  of  the  tower  of  Babel,  about  one  hun- 
dred and  twenty  years  later,  men  had  but  one  language,  but  at  this 
period,  they  became  divided  in  their  tongues,  and  formed  separate  na- 
tions. The  most  ancient  records  point  out  to  us  Chaldea  and  Egypt,  as 
subsequently  the  two  principal  nursing-places  of  the  human  race;  and 
the  earliest  exhibitions  of  religion,  different  from  that  derived  through 
Noe,  are  manifested  in  those  two  countries.  There  is  a  large  body  of 
evidence  to  show  that  the  first  error  which  was  generally  admitted  after 
the  corruption  of  the  original  traditions,  consisted  in  a  belief  that  there 
existed  a  universal  soul  which  animated  the  world.  It  was  manifested, 
they  thought,  in  the  activity  of  fire,  the  fertilizing  or  the  overwhelming 
power  of  water,  the  productiveness  of  the  earth;  the  menace  of  thunder 
and  the  fury  of  the  wind.  Man  forgot  the  Lord  of  nature  even  in  the 
contemplation  of  his  works.  Local  circumstances  gave  direction  to  the 
mind  of  the  worshipper,  and  whilst  the  Chaldean  adored  the  soul  of  the 
universe  in  the  stars  which  he  observed,  the  Egyptian  saw  its  influence 
in  the  waters  of  the  Nile,  and  in  their  connexions,  whilst  the  Persian 
viewed  the  glories  of  the  sun,  and  paid  his  homage  to  the  element  of 
fire.  The  natural  alliance  between  the  appearance  of  the  heavenly  bodies 
and  those  changes  of  the  weather,  an  acquaintance  with  which  was  so 
necessary  to  an  unsheltered  and  agricultural  people,  as  well  as  the  regu- 
larity of  the  phases  and  motions  which  those  stars  exhibited,  added  to 


two        DEFENCE    OP    PRECEDING    SECTION  65 

the  brilliancy  of  their  aspect,  made  "the  army  of  heaven,"  as  they  were 
soon  called,  an  object  of  the  earliest  wonder  and  veneration  for  a  people 
who  found,  as  they  believed,  their  most  important  concerns  influenced 
by  this  heavenly  host,  of  which  the  sun  was  king,  and  the  moon  was 
queen.  It  was  but  a  step,  and  that  easy  and  natural,  to  view  each  promi- 
nent light  as  an  individual,  guided  by  its  own  genius,  and  that  genius 
the  portion  of  the  universal  soul  which  animated  and  watched  over  this 
luminary  alone.  Thus  the  Creator  was  forgotten,  and  the  created  objects 
received  the  homage  which  was  due  only  to  him.  The  entire  was  a  gross 
error,  which  is  finely  described  in  the  following  passage  of  the  Book  of 
Wisdom,  which,  you,  gentlemen,  have  thought  proper  to  reject  from 
amongst  the  inspired  writings,  but  which  you  still  admit  to  be  read  for 
instruction  of  life  and  manners,  and  which  you  of  course  believe  to  be 
at  least  the  testimony  of  a  respectable  and  well-informed  witness,  regard- 
ing an  important  and  public  fact,  the  existence  of  which  he  was  then 
more  competent,  than  we  now  can  be  to  ascertain. 

"1.  But  all  men  are  vain,  in  whom  there  is  not  the  knowledge  of 
God ;  and  who  by  these  good  things  that  are  seen,  could  not  understand 
him,  that  is,  neither  by  attending  to  the  works  have  acknowledged  who 
was  the  workman : 

"2.  But  having  imagined  either  the  fire,  or  the  wind,  or  the  swift 
air,  or  the  circle  of  the  stars,  or  the  great  water,  or  the  sun  and  moon,  to 
be  the  gods  that  rule  the  world: 

"3.  With  whose  beauty  if  they,  being  delighted,  took  them  to  be 
gods,  let  them  know  how  much  the  Lord  of  them  is  more  beautiful  than 
they:  for  the  first  author  of  beauty  made  all  those  things. 

"4.  Or  if  they  admired  their  power  and  their  effects,  let  them 
understand  by  them,  that  he  that  made  them  is  mightier  than  they : 

"5.  For  by  the  greatness  of  the  beauty,  and  of  the  creature,  the 
Creator  of  them  may  be  seen,  so  as  to  be  known  thereby. 

"6.  But  yet  as  to  these  they  are  less  to  be  blamed.  For  they  per- 
haps err,  seeking  God,  and  desirious  to  find  him. 

"7.  For  being  conversant  among  his  works,  they  search:  and  they 
are  persuaded  that  the  things  are  good  which  are  seen. 

"8.     But  then  again  they  are  not  to  be  pardoned. 

"9.  For  if  they  were  able  to  know  so  much,  as  to  make  a  judg- 
ment of  the  world :  how  did  they  not  more  easily  find  out  the  Lord  there- 
of."    {Wisdom,  chap,  xiii.) 

Here  now  was  a  crime,  1st,  because  of  not  giving  adoration  to  the 
true  God ;  2d,  because  of  multiplying  gods ;  and  3d,  because  of  giving  to 
a  creature  the  homage  which  was  due  only  to  the  Creator.     This  crimi- 


66  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

nality  existed  before  an  image  was  made ;  Job  mentions  this  as  criminal 
conduct,  in  chapter  xxxi.,  as  regarded  the  sun  and  moon.  In  process 
of  time  the  arts  of  painting  and  sculpture  arose,  and  were  improved: 
images  were  then  made;  the  adorers  of  the  several  portions  of  creation 
expressed  in  emblematic  devices  representations  of  the  object  of  their 
worship,  Baal,  Ashtaroth,  Anubis,  Isis,  and  so  forth.  These  representa- 
tions had  no  real  prototypes,  nor  were  the  invented  figures  similitudes 
or  copies  of  any  of  the  objects  in  which  the  genii  were  supposed  to  dwell : 
but  the  persons  who  had  the  figure  made,  imagined  forth  those  limbs 
and  features  which  they  thought  best  fitted  to  express  the  qualities  of  the 
god  whom  they  adored. 

EiSoXov  or  "idolum^^  is  a  likeness,  and  so  is  etKos  ^' imago-/'  but 
there  was  an  obvious  distinction  between  an  emblematic  statue  for  which 
there  was  no  real  prototype,  or  original  from  which  it  could  be  copied, 
or  to  whose  likeness  it  was  made;  and  that  statue  which  was  the  copy 
of  an  original  in  nature.  Hence  the  words  soon  came  in  common  usage 
to  be  differently  appropriated,  idolum  to  the  representation  of  a  ficti- 
tious God,  and  imago  to  the  representation  of  that  which  had  a  natural 
prototype.  The  worshipper  of  the  fictitious  deities  was  criminal  in  those 
times  before  an  image  was  made,  and  now  when  he  paid  divine  honour 
to  his  imaginary  god,  through  the  idol,  his  crime  was  not  thereby  dimin- 
ished, but  if  in  his  folly  he  imagined  the  genius  of  the  sun,  for  instance, 
after  invocation  to  reside  in  the  statue  of  Baal,  and  then  paid  his  homage 
to  that  deity  as  actually  residing  in  the  idol,  he  was  at  least  more  besot- 
ted, if  not  more  criminal.  The  worship  due  to  the  deity  was  generally 
designated  latria,  and  hence  the  worshipper  of  idols  was  called  an  idol- 
ater. In  this  view  then,  idolatry  deprived  the  Creator  of  his  homage, 
and  transferred  it  to  an  imaginary  being  or  to  an  idol.  The  author  of 
the  Book  of  Wisdom  continues  in  the  subsequent  part  of  his  chap,  xiii., 
and  in  the  commencement  of  his  chap.  xiv.  down  to  verse  14,  to  describe 
this  mode  of  making  and  of  worshipping  of  idols. 

To  this  was  now  added  a  new  species  of  error,  which  is  described 
in  the  subsequent  verses.  The  servants  of  a  great  man  began  to  pay 
divine  honours  to  the  image  of  his  son :  and  the  next  process  was  paying 
divine  honours  to  other  statues  by  the  wicked  custom  of  law,  and  by 
the  order  of  tyrants.  The  history  of  the  Egyptian,  the  Grecian,  and  the 
Roman  people  will  exhibit  the  same  series  of  facts;  as  well  as  those  de- 
scribed in  the  22d  and  subsequent  verses  of  chapter  xiv.,  regarding  the 
unnatural  and  other  criminal  rites  which  accompanied  this  idolatry. 
Thus,  to  take  a  sketch  of  the  basis  of  mythology,  we  find  that  the  heavens 
and  the  earth  were  the  parents  of  Chronos,  or  Time,  or  Saturn  the  father 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  67 

of  Jupiter  the  king  of  the  gods :  and  when  we  follow  up  the  explanations 
of  the  philosophers,  we  are  brought  back  exactly  to  the  point  from  which 
I  set  out.  The  matter  of  the  heavens  and  of  the  earth  was  eternal. 
Time  produced  all  other  things,  even  the  genii  who  preside  over  the  var- 
ious parts  of  the  heavens,  of  the  earth,  of  the  air,  of  the  waters,  and  of 
the  regions  below.  The  genii  of  the  East  became  the  gods  of  the  Greek 
and  of  the  Roman ;  their  names  were  changed  according  to  the  variety 
of  language ;  and  the  worship  due  to  God  alone,  was  given  to  creatures 
through  the  idols,  and  frequently  to  the  idols  themselves:  heroes  and 
demi-gods  were  next  assumed  into  the  rank  of  the  celestial  and  infernal 
gods,  and  the  rites  of  divine  worship  were  paid  alike  to  all.  The  Creator 
was  overlooked,  and  idols  were  adored.  Gentlemen,  if  your  curious  cor- 
respondent should  take  it  into  his  head,  from  his  knowledge  of  the  Iliad, 
the  Aeneid,  and  the  Pantheon,  to  call  any  part  of  this  statement  into 
question,  I  beg  to  inform  you  that  it  is  not  thoughtlessly  hazarded ;  there 
is  abundant  evidence  to  sustain  its  averments,  but  I  do  not  deem  it  now 
necessary  to  exhibit  an  array  of  testimony,  which  is  at  his  service. 

In  this  view  of  pagan  idolatry  are  included,  first,  the  ommission  of 
worshipping  the  true  God;  secondly,  polytheism;  thirdly,  paying  divine 
honour  to  created  beings,  or  to  imaginary  beings ;  fourthly,  the  cere- 
monial of  worship  was,  in  its  own  nature,  and  in  its  necessary  conse- 
quences, generally  of  the  most  demoralizing  tendency.  The  created  be- 
ings were  animate,  or  inanimate;  but  when  this  worship  was  paid  to 
an  inanimate  idol,  it  was  generally  because  of  a  notion  that  a  divinity 
resided  therein:  and  that  this  was  apparently  the  case,  and  not  always 
gratuitously  or  absurdly  imagined  by  the  vulgar,  the  various  oracular 
answers  given  from  shrines  and  idols,  especially  at  Delphos,  bear  ample 
testimony.  I  acknowledge  they  were  impositions,  whether  merely  human, 
or  diabolical,  this  is  not  the  place  to  discuss ;  but  they  were  such  as  to 
cause  kings  and  senators  and  nations  to  apply  for  information  to  the 
shrine  or  idol,  under  the  most  solemn  circumstances,  and  after  the  most 
mature  deliberation.  We  can  now  form  a  distinct  notion  of  pagan  idol- 
atry. 

The  Theogony  of  Hesiod,  as  well  as  the  other  ancient  pieces  of  the 
Greeks,  will  confirm  this  view.  I  will  not  assert  that  there  might  not 
have  existed  some  exceptions  to  the  general  statement;  I  shall  not  say 
that  every  man  in  Greece  was  ignorant  of  the  nature  of  the  Lord  of  the 
Universe ;  but  I  do  state,  that  no  evidence  of  their  knowledge  has  reached 
our  day.  Socrates,  if  he  know  the  nature  of  God,  certainly  was  deficient 
in  one  great  point  of  duty,  for  he  had  sacrifice,  which  is  the  greatest 
act  of  divine  worship,  paid  to  the  god  Esculapius.     His  disciple,  Plato, 


68  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

not  only  profited  by  the  knowledge  of  Socrates,  but  is  supposed  to  have 
received  some  communications  of  the  true  and  enlightening  doctrine  of 
the  Jews ;  and  his  supposed  pure  Theism,  like  the  Great  Spirit  of  our 
aborigines,  is  the  idol  of  modern  infidelity.  St.  Augustine  had  no  extra- 
ordinary respect  for  this  best  production  of  the  philosophical  research 
of  antiquity.  Let  us  observe  a  mere  outline  of  Plato's  system.  In  his 
Timaeus  he  lays  down  as  a  principle,  that  the  soul  or  spirit  should  exist 
before  the  body  which  it  is  to  animate  or  to  govern ;  from  this  principle, 
also,  in  the  10th  Book  of  Laws,  he  concludes  that  God  must  have  existed 
before  matter  was  arranged,  for  by  his  intelligence  it  was  made  harmo- 
nious in  its  movements.  He  exhibits  to  us  the  whole  matter  of  the  uni- 
verse as  animated  and  moved  by  a  universal  soul,  without  informing  us 
whether  this  Psyche  is  God,  or  a  spirit  which  has  been  created:  we  are 
informed  that  this  universal  soul  has  been  distributed  amongst  the 
heavenly  bodies  and  the  earth ;  those  bodies  are  then  called  ' '  divine  ani- 
mals," ''celestial  gods,"  and  so  forth.  Those  celestial  gods  have  pro- 
duced beings  who  generally  invisible,  yet  have  power  of  manifesting 
themselves;  they  are  genii,  demons,  and  other  spirits,  and  those  lower 
spirits  are  the  beings  commissioned  to  form  man  and  terrestrial  animals, 
to  animate  them  with  portions  of  soul  derived  from  the  stars,  and  so 
forth.  He  states,  that  we  can  neither  conceive  nor  explain  the  origin  of 
the  celestial  gods,  but  that  we  ought  to  respect  the  accounts  which  we 
have  received  from  our  ancestors,  of  those  beings  who,  they  said,  were 
their  parents.  Plato  believed  that  matter  was  eternal ;  God  was  not  its 
Creator,  but  its  modeller.  Yet,  according  to  his  own  principle,  the  soul 
which  animated  matter  must  have  previously  existed,  that  is,  existed 
before  that  which  was  eternal !  Were  I  to  enter  into  any  examination, 
it  would  occupy  space  and  time  which  this  present  object  does  not  re- 
quire. This  eminent  philosopher  did  not  exhibit  to  us,  as  the  object  of 
our  adoration,  ' '  the  Lord  of  Hosts, "  "  the  Creator  of  the  Universe, ' '  but 
the  "celestial  gods,"  or  "the  genii."  But  when  Christianity  was 
established,  and  the  early  Christian  writers  assailed  this  idolatry,  then, 
for  the  first  time,  the  able  and  ingenious  pagans  of  the  Platonic  school 
endeavoured  to  take  shelter  under  the  shield  of  Christianity  itself,  by 
adopting  the  doctrine  of  minor  and  relative  veneration,  which  was  ulti- 
mately referable  to  "God  the  eternal,"  "the  supreme  God,"  and  so  forth. 
Celsus  was  one  of  the  first  who  had  recourse  to  this  strategem ;  Origen 
gives  us  his  statement;  Julian  the  Apostate  went  farther,  and,  as  St. 
Cyril  informs  us,  had  the  hardihood  to  say  that  the  pagans  adored  as 
their  "supreme  God,"  "the  Jehovah  of  the  Jews:"  and  Celsus  and 
Julian  are  not  without  imitators.     But  they  were  the  first  who  made  the 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  69 

assertions,  and  those  assertions  were  then  new  and  inadmissible.  And 
since  truth  must  continue  unchanged  through  all  times,  those  assertions, 
though  somewhat  older  at  present,  are  now  equally  inadmissible. 

I  feel  it  to  be  altogether  out  of  the  question,  that  I  should  intro- 
duce full  proofs  of  my  various  positions;  but  yet  it  is  proper  that  I 
should,  at  least,  allude  to  a  few  of  the  testimonies  which  are  so  abun- 
dant, and  at  hand.  Origen,  in  his  Homily  8,  on  Exodus,  in  expounding 
the  meaning  of  the  phrase  "graven  thing,"  or  "graven  image,"  which 
the  Septuagint,  long  before  Christianity,  translated  in  Exodus  xx.  by 
the  word  «8oAov,  gives  the  distinction  which  I  previously  laid  down 
between  image  and  idol:  the  first  being  copied  from  a  prototype;  the 
second  being  the  representation  of  that  which  does  not  exist,  and  is, 
therefore,  "a  falsehood,"  "a  lie,"  "a  lying  thing,"  "a  deceit,"  and  so 
forth,  as  it  is  frequently  called  by  sacred  writers.  Theodoret  gives  the 
same  distinction  in  Qua?s.  38,  upon  the  same  passage.  Tertullian  states 
that  ctSoXov  is  a  diminutive  of  «Sos,  '^ forma/'  or  appearance,  to  show, 
by  the  use  of  the  diminutive,  there  was  no  expression  of  the  prototype; 
for  those  diminutives  were  used  either  to  denote  extraordinary  affection, 
or  such  imperfection  as  created  contempt,  {lib.  de  idolatria.)  Hence, 
Lucian  also  calls  the  shades  of  the  dead  etSoXa,  phantasmatic  delusions, 
unreal  mockeries :  thus  St.  Augustine  informs  us,  in  Psalm  cxxxv.,  that, 
what  the  Greeks  called  eiSoXa^  the  Latins  called  simulacra,  which  word 
is  derived,  not  from  similis,  "like,"  but  from  simulare,  "to  pretend;" 
whence  St.  Jerome,  in  cap.  vii.  Oseae,  states  that  simulacrum  is  opposed 
to  God,  as  falsehood  is  to  truth,  because  it  represents  "a  false  god."  I 
omit  several  others  that  lie  before  me,  and  proceed  to  exhibit  the  same 
distinction  from  the  Scriptures. 

St.  Paul,  in  Col.  i.  15,  styles  the  incarnate  Son  "the  image  of  the 
invisible  God,"  not  eiSoXov,  but  €txov  tov  Oeov  tov  aoparov-  and  in 
Hebrew  i.  3,  "the  express  image  of  his  person,"  not  €l8oXov^  but  char- 
acter; no  one  would  translate  this  by  idolum,  but  every  scholar  would 
give  imago.  In  Exodus  xx.  4,  the  translators  who  made  the  Septuagint 
gives  us  ciSoAov  ^'idolum/'  an  idol;  and  then  ofxoioixa.^  which  is  by  some 
rendered  "similitudo,"  likeness,  by  others  ''simulacrum,''  the  meaning 
of  which  we  have  seen  above:  in  Leviticus  xix.  4,  repeating  the  pre- 
cept, Moses  tells  the  Israelites  not  to  follow  etSoXoi?,  idols,  and  imme- 
diately adjoins  "nor  gods  made  by  fusion,"  or  "molten  gods."  In 
Numbers  xxiii.  21,  your  version  gives  us,  not  the  translation  of  the  He- 
brew, according  to  St.  Jerome,  nor  that  of  the  Septuagint,  but  that  of 
the  Samaritan,  with  which  the  Syriac  and  Arabic  nearly  correspond, 
but  to  which  the  Chaldaic  paraphrase  would  appear  to  be  opposed.     If 


70  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

there  be  no  distinction  between  idols  and  images,  I  believe  it  would  be 
very  hard  to  reconcile  those  various  readings ;  but  if  we  only  admit  this 
distinction,  the  reconciliation  is  at  once  effected.  St.  Jerome  tells  us 
that  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  is  such  as  we  translate  it. 

"There  is  no  idol  in  Jacob;  neither  is  there  an  image-god  to  be  seen  in  Israel." 

You  translate  it. 

"He  hath  not  beheld  iniquity  in  Jacob:  neither  hath  he  seen  perverseness  in 
Israel. ' ' 

Both  translations  agree  in  the  next  phrase. 

' '  The  Lord  his  God  is  with  him, ' '  and  so  forth. 

Now,  according  to  our  translation,  this  was  a  declaration  that  Israel 
could  not  be  cursed  by  Balaam,  because,  not  only  there  was  not  an  idol 
to  be  found  in  their  camp,  nor  an  image-god :  but  the  Lord  God  of  Israel 
was  to  be  found  therein.  The  Chaldaic  paraphrase  strengthens  this, 
for  it  makes  Balaam  say,  "I  see  that  there  are  no  servers  of  idols,  nor 
any  workers  of  falsehood  in  Israel. ' '  Yet  in  fact  at  this  very  time,  there 
were  in  the  camp,  the  images  of  the  Cherubim,  over  the  ark,  or  mercy 
seat ;  but  they  were  not  idols,  because  they  were  not  made  to  be  adored 
or  served  with  divine  homage ;  neither  w^ere  they  ' '  image-gods, ' '  although 
they  were  images:  and  the  Lord  God,  whom  Balaam  declared  to  be 
present,  dwelt  between  those  very  images  {Exod.  xxv.  22;  xl.  34,  38); 
and  they  had  prototypes,  after  the  pattern  of  which  they  were  made, 
(Exod.  xxv.  9,  40 ;  xxvi.  30,  and  so  forth,) .  From  the  view  already  taken, 
as  well  as  from  an  inspection  of  Exodus  xxv.  18,  and  so  forth,  as  also 
of  /  or  III  Kings  vi.  23  to  36,  it  will  be  perceived  that  an  image  could 
lawfully  be  made,  and  not  only  without  iniquity,  but  even  in  obedience 
to  divine  command,  and  therefore  religiously;  but  an  idol  could  never 
be  made  without  iniquity:  and  the  word  which  signified  an  idol,  thus 
became  synonymous  with  the  iniquity  of  idolatry:  the  word  w^hich  sig- 
nified an  "image-god"  also  signified  perverseness,  so  that  I  do  not  object 
to  your  translation  as  wanting  in  literal  correctness,  provided  the  words 
be,  as  they  ought  to  be,  understood  to  mean,  this  special  iniquity  and  this 
particular  perverseness, — as  he  who  made  an  "image-god,"  is  very  pro- 
perly said  by  the  Chaldaic  paraphrase  to  be  "a  worker  of  falsehood."' 
Thus  the  Samaritan  has  the  words  "iniquity,"  and  "prevarication," 
the  Arabic  "fraud,"  for  idol,  and  "deceit,"  for  image-god,  and  in  this 
it  agrees  fully  with  the  Syriac.  If  then  we  view  "iniquity"  to  mean 
idol,  and  "perverseness"  image-god,  the  translations  at  once  are  recon- 
ciled: and  though  there  were  images  in  the  camp,  yet  there  were  not 
idols  or  image-gods  therein.  My  object  in  making  those  references, 
which  might  be  easily  multiplied,  was  to  show  that  an  idol  or  image- 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  71 

god  was  alwaj's  designated  in  the  old  Scriptures,  not  merely  by  the 
phrase  which  would  signify  an  image,  such  as  that  of  the  cherub ;  but  by 
a  word  or  phrase  that  signified  an  empty  or  vain,  or  deceitful  representa- 
tion; or  "iniquity,"  as  idolatry  is  called  in  Osee  vi.  8,  "work  of  in- 
iquity," and  hence  in  the  New  Testament,  St.  Paul  (/.  Cor.  viii.  4) 
writes,  "we  know  that  an  idol  «SoXov,  is  nothing  in  the  world,"  that  is, 
"an  idol  is  a  vain,  lying  representation  of  what  has  not  existence  in  the 
world."  And  again,  the  Apostle  proceeds,  "and  that  there  is  none  other 
God  but  one.  5.  For  though  there  be  these  that  are  called  gods, 
whether  in  heaven,  or  in  earth,  (as  there  be  gods  many,  and  lords  many.) 
6.  But  to  us  there  is  but  one  God,"  and  so  forth.  That  is  "idols  lead 
to  polytheism,  or  the  worship  of  many  gods,  but  we  have  only  one  God." 
I  shall  close  this  discussion  by  a  reference  to  the  meaning  of  the  words 
generally  used  in  the  old  Scripture,  for  those  objects  of  pagan  worship, 
and  of  Jewish  prevarication.  Bahalim,  "masters  or  lords,"  Elilim, 
"imaginary  beings,"  Schedim,  or  Sckoudim,  "wicked  or  destructive  be- 
ings, or  iniquitous,"  Tsijjim,  or  Scharhirim,  "monsters,  or  ugly  ani- 
mals, or  wild  ferocious  beasts."  Again  in  our  version,  Psalm  xcv.  5,  we 
read, 

"For  all  the  gods  of  the  Gentiles  are  devils:  but  the  Lord  made  the  heavens." 

The  contrast  is  here  drawn  between  the  beings  who  were  actually 

worshipped  if  you  will,  "through  the  images,"  and  the  Creator,  who  was 

neglected  by  the  Gentiles,  or  I  shall  take  your  own  version  of  the  same 

passage.  Psalm  xcvi.  5 : 

"For  all  the  gods  of  the  nations  are  idols:  but  the  Lord  made  the  heavens." 
Your  version  confines  the  Pagan  worship  to  the  idols  themselves; 
ours  shows  that  it  was  carried  through  the  idols  or  images,  to  devils ;  but 
it  is  plain,  that  take  it  which  way  you  will,  the  Gentiles  did  not  adore 
the  Creator  but  the  creatures,  whether  the  devils  or  the  images,  matters 
little;  it  was  idolatry.  Our  doctrine  and  practice  then  are,  that  divine 
honour  is  to  be  paid  only  to  the  one  God,  the  Creator  and  supreme  Lord 
of  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  to  the  "Lord  of  the  heavenly  host"  and 
not  to  the  "host  of  heaven." 

Under  ordinary  circumstances,  what  I  have  written  would  be  more 
than  enough,  but  as  there  appears  to  be  a  disposition  to  force  us  into 
the  ranks  of  idolaters,  whether  we  will  or  not ;  and,  as  many  very  strange 
assertions  are  made  respecting  the  belief  and  practice  of  the  ancients, 
probably  it  would  be  as  well  to  resume  the  subject  in  my  next. 
I  am,  gentlemen. 

Your  obedient,  humble  servant,  b.  c. 


72  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

LETTER  IX. 

Forthwith  from  every  squadron  and  each  band 

The  heads  and  leaders  thither  haste  where  stood 

Their  great  commander;   godlike  shapes  and  forms 

Excelling    human,    princely    dignities; 

And  powers  that  erst  in  heaven,  sat  on  thrones, 

Though   of  their  names  in   heavenly   records   now 

Be  no  memorial;   blotted  out  and  ras'd 

By  their  rebellion  from  the  books  of  life. 

Nor  had  they  yet  among  the  sons  of  Eve 

Got  them  new  names;  till,  wandering  o'er  the  earth, 

Through  God's  high  sufferance  for  the  trial  of  man 

By  falsities  and  lies  the  greatest  part 

Of  mankind  they  corrupted  to  forsake 

God  their  Creator,  and  the  invisible 

Glory  of  him  that  made  them  to  transform 

Oft  to  the  image  of  a  brute,  adorn 'd 

With  gay  religions,  full  of  pomp  and  gold, 

And  devils  to  adore  for  deities: 

Then  were  they  known  to  men  by  various  names. 

And  various  idols  through  the  heathen  world. 

Milton's  Paradise  Lost,  Book  I. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  June  27,  1829. 
To  the  Editors: 

Gentlemen: — In  my  last,  I  have  exhibited  an  outline  of  the  idola- 
trous worship  of  the  pagans ;  in  it,  you  have  seen  stated,  that  they  paid 
no  worship  to  the  Creator  of  the  world,  the  eternal  and  invisible  God, 
but  that  they  worshipped  imaginary  beings,  under  strange  figures  fash- 
ioned according  to  fancy;  or  they  worshipped  creatures,  whether  they 
believed  them  to  reside  in  images  or  not ;  those  creatures  were  in  many 
instances  devils,  who  sought  to  arrogate  to  themselves  the  homage  due 
to  the  Creator,  and  in  opposition  to  him.     Upon  the  principle  which  I 
have  taken  as  my  guide,  it  is  proper  that  I  should  satisfy  my  readers, 
that  those  assertions  have  not  been  gratuitously  made,  though  I  shall 
not  enter  into  full  evidence  for  their  support.     If  I  can  prove  that  it 
was  not  "the  eternal  God,"  "the  Creator"  whom  they  adored  as  "their 
supreme  God,"  I  shall  have  established  my  first  position.     Your  corre- 
spondent very  wisely  keeps  clear  of  committing  himself  upon  this  point. 
Nay,  he  even  appears  to  me  to  be  fully  aware  of  the  correctness  of  my 
assertion,  and  to  coincide  with  me  therein,  for  in  his  essay  2,  paragraph 
23,  he  admits  a  wide  distinction  in  favour  of  "Christian  worshippers  of 
the  one  only  God,"  and  "those  who  with  no  knowledge  or  belief  of  the 
one  Jehovah"  worshipped  "fictitious  deities,"  and  also  between  them 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  73 

and  the  Indian  who  "through  his  idols"  "worshipped  the  unknown 
God."  Now  they  who  neither  luaew  nor  believed  an}i;hing  of  the  one 
Jehovah  could  not  worship  him  through  an  image,  or  without  one. 

The  supreme  god  Avorshipped  by  the  idolatrous  Greeks  and  Romans 
was  Jupiter,  or  Jove,  who  certainly  was  not  the  eternal  God,  because 
he  was  the  son  of  Saturn,  who  was  himself  the  son  of  Coelus,  and  so 
forth,  neither  was  he  the  "Creator,"  because  Coelus  and  Terra,  or  the 
Heavens  and  the  Earth,  which  were  his  grandfather  and  grandmother, 
pre-existed  to  his  father:  what  then  are  we  to  think  of  the  information 
of  those  good  writers,  who  gravely  tell  us  that  the  mythology  of  Greece 
and  Rome  placed  Jupiter,  the  supreme  god,  in  the  situation  of  our  Je- 
hovah, or  "God  the  Creator,"  and  Neptune,  Pluto,  and  so  forth,  in  the 
situation  of  our  saints?  Verily,  the  good  simple  men  need  to  be  taught. 
But  if  they  have  been  taught,  and  if  they  do  know  those  facts,  and  if 
they  have  during  some  years,  laboured  in  teaching  those  same  facts  to 
children,  what  are  we  to  think  of  the  religious  integrity  of  those  holy 
asserters?  Yea, — of  a  truth  then,  is  their  religious  integrity  a  noble 
phenomenon ! ! 

But,  gentlemen,  your  curious  correspondent  might  easily  have  refer- 
red to  a  better  author  than  either  of  those  mentioned  by  him,  if  his  object 
was  to  make  us  well  acquainted  with  the  heathen  mythology.  Ovid 
wrote  expressly  upon  the  subject. 

"Ante  mare  et  tellus,  et  quod  tegit  omnia,  caelum, 

Unus  erat  toto  Naturae  vultus  in  orbe. 

Quern  dixere  Chaos." 

"Before  the  seas,  and  this  terrestrial  ball 

And  heaven,  high  canopy,  that  covers  all, 

One  was  the  face  of  Nature ;  if  a  face : 

Eather  a   rude  and  indigested  mass: 

A  lifeless  lump,  unf ashion  'd  unf ramed, 

Of  jarring  seeds;  and  justly  Chaos  named." 

Thus  Ovid  gives  us  matter,  or  chaos  in  the  first  instance,  before  all 
things;  he  then  proceeds  to  inform  us  of  its  subsequent  distribution  or 
arrangement. 

"Sic  uhi  dispositam,  quisquis  fuit  ille  Deorum, 
Congeriem  secuit,  sectamque  in  membra  redegit." 
' '  Thus  when  the  God,  whatever  God  was  he, 
Had  formed  the  whole,  and  made  the  parts  agree. ' ' 

We  have  thus  found  his  testimony  in  the  first  book  of  his  Metamor- 
phoses, for  the  pre-existence  of  chaos,  or  matter  increated ;  and  some  one 
of  the  gods, — one  whom  they  did  not  know,  subsequently  regulating  the 
parts,  of  which  this  chaos  was  composed. 


74  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

" Postquam,  Saturno  tenetrosa  in  Tartara  misso,  Sub  Jove  mundus  erat." 
' '  But  when  good  Saturn,  banish  'd  from  above, 
Was  driven  to  Hell,  the  world  was  under  Jove. ' ' 

We  are  now  brought  to  the  exhibition  of  who  was  "the  supreme 
god"  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans.  This  Jove  or  Jupiter,  clearly  then 
was  neither  the  god  who  created  chaos,  nor  he  who  regulated  its  parts. 
A  slight  reference  to  the  Theogony  of  Hesiod  will  perhaps  not  be  here 
amiss. 

*  *  Hail,  maids  celestial,  seed  of  Heaven 's  great  king, 

Hear,  nor  unaided  let  thy  poet  sing. 

Inspire  a  lovely  lay,  harmonious  nine. 

My  theme  th'  immortal  gods,  a  race  divine. 

Of  Earth,  of  Heaven  which  lamps  of  light  adorn, 

And  of  old  sable  Night,  great  parents,  born,"  and  so  forth. 

I  make  but  such  few  extracts  as  are  necessary  for  my  purpose,  but 
am  careful  not  to  garble,  so  as  to  misrepresent  any  idea  of  the  original, 
or  to  suggest  any  not  contained  therein.  I  shall  quote  from  Cooke's 
translation  and  refer  to  the  lines. 

"Chaos,  of  all  the  origin,  gave  birth; 

First  to  her  offspring  the  wide-bosomed  Earth, 

The  seat  secure  of  all  the  gods,  who  now 

Possess  Olympus  ever  clothed  with  snow : 

Th'  abodes  of  Hell  from  the  same  fountain  rise,  and  so  forth.     (Line  190.) 

And  Erebus,  black  son,  from  Chaos  came,  202. 

Born  with  his  sister  Night,  a  sable  dame. 

Night  born,  the  produce  of  her  am'rous  play 

With  Erebus,  the  sky,  and  cheerful  day. 

Earth,  first  an  equal  to  herself  in  fame 

Brought  forth,  that  covers  all,  the  starry  frame. 

The  spacious  Heaven,  of  gods  the  safe  domain,  and  so  forth. 

At  length  the  Ocean,  with  his  pools  profound,  214. 

Whose  whirling  streams  pursue  their  rapid  round, 

Of  Heaven  and  Earth  is  born. 

To  these  successive  wily  Saturn  came,  223. 

As  sire  and  son  in  each  a  barbarous  name. 

Rhea  to  Saturn  bore,  her  brother  god,  694. 

Vesta  and  Ceres;  Juno,  golden  shod, 

And  Pluto,  hard  of  heart,  whose  wide  command 

Is  o'er  a  dark  and  subterraneous  land,     • 

A  pow  'rf ul  monarch,  hence  detive  their  birth 

With  Neptune,  deity  who  shakes  the  earth: 

Of  these  great  Jove,  the  ruler  of  the  skies 

Of  gods  and  men  the  sire,  in  council  wise, 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  75 

Is  born;  and  him  the  universe  adores, 

And  the  earth  trembles  when  his  thunder  roars. 

Saturn  from  Earth  and  Heav'n  adorned  with  stars, 

Had  learned  the  rumor  of  approaching  wars, 

Great  as  he  was,  a  greater  should  arise 

To  rob  him  of  his  empire  of  the  skies. 

The  mighty  Jove  his  son,"  and  so  forth. 

I  may  here  safely  conclude  that  the  Pagans  did  not  worship  the  true 
God  in  any  manner  whatsoever ;  not  in  spirit  and  in  truth,  not  through 
the  images  of  Jupiter,  of  Baal,  of  Beelzebub,  or  of  any  other,  called 
the  king  of  heaven,  the  supreme  god,  or  by  whatever  other  name  he 
might  be  designated. 

Whom  then  did  they  worship,  through  their  idols?  Let  the  few 
extracts  which  I  adduce  inform  you,  and  you  have  only  to  call  for  others 
of  a  similar  description  if  you  need  them.  I  here  quote  from  your  own 
version,  unless  I  state  otherwise. 

' '  And  the  priest  shall  sprinkle  the  blood  upon  the  altar  of  the  Lord  at  the  door 
of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  and  burn  the  fat  for  a  sweet  savour  unto  the 
Lord.  And  they  shall  no  more  offer  their  sacrifices  unto  devils,  after  whom  they  have 
gone  a  whoring,"  and  so  forth. — (Levit.  xvii.  6,  7.) 

Catholic  version.  {Deut.  xxxii.  15,  16,  17,  18.)  "He  forsook  God  who  made 
him,  and  departed  from  God  his  Saviour.  They  provoked  him  by  strange  gods,  and 
stirred  him  up  to  anger  with  their  abominations.  They  sacrificed  to  devils  and  not  to 
God,  to  gods  whom  they  knew  not ;  that  were  newly  come  up,  whom  their  fathers  wor- 
shipped not.  Thou  hast  forgotten  the  God  that  begot  thee,  and  hast  forgotten  the 
Lord  that  created  thee.  The  Lord  saw  and  was  moved  to  wrath,  because  his  own  sons 
and  daughters  provoked  him. 

Protestant  version.  ' '  Then  he  forsook  God  that  made  him,  and  lightly  esteemed 
the  rock  of  his  salvation.  They  provoked  him  to  jealousy  with  strange  gods,  with 
abominations  provoked  they  him  to  anger.  They  sacrificed  unto  devils;  not  to  God; 
to  gods  whom  they  knew  not;  to  new  gods  that  came  newly  up,  whom  your  fathers 
feared  not.  Of  the  Eock  that  begat  thee  thou  art  unmindful,  and  hast  forgotten 
God  that  formed  thee.  And  when  the  Lord  saw  it  he  abhorred  them,  because  of  the 
provoking  of  his  sons  and  of  his  daughters." 

Catholic  version.  (Psalm  cvi.  Catholic  Psalm  cv.)  "19.  They  made  also  a 
calf  in  Horeb:  and  they  adored  the  graven  thing,  and  they  changed  their  glory  into 
the  likeness  of  a  calf  that  eateth  grass,"  and  so  forth. 

Protestant  version.  ' '  19.  They  made  a  calf  in  Horeb,  and  worshipped  the 
molten  image.  20.  Thus  they  changed  their  glory  into  the  similitude  of  an  ox  that 
eateth  grass.  21.  They  forgot  God  their  Saviour,  which  had  done  great  things  in 
Egypt." 

Catholic  version.     "They  were  also  initiated  to  Beelphegor, "  and  so  forth. 

Protestant  version.  "28.  They  joined  themselves  also  unto  Baalpeor  and  eat 
the  sacrifices  of  the  dead.  29.  Thus  they  provoked  him  to  anger  with  their  inven- 
tions. ' ' 

Protestant  version.  (Numbers  xxv.)  "1.  And  Israel  abode  in  Shittim,  and 
the  people  began  to  commit  whoredom  with  the  daughters  of  Moab.     2.     And  they 


76  DOCTRINE  Vol. 


called  the  people  unto  the  sacrifices  of  their  gods:  and  the  people  did  eat,  and  bowed 
down  to  their  gods.     3.     And  Israel  joined  himself  unto  Baal-peor, "  and  so  forth. 

The  idols  that  they  adored  were  dead  and  the  sacrifices  offered  them 
were  by  way  of  contempt  called  the  "sacrifices  of  the  dead,"  to  show 
the  vanity  of  idols,  in  contrast  with  "the  living  God,"  who  necessarily 
possesses  life  and  communicates  it.  The  Psalmist  proceeds  to  show  who 
were  the  objects  of  adoration  through  the  images  of  those  idolaters. 

Protestant  version.  (Psalm  cvi.)  "35.  But  they  were  mingled  among  the 
heathen,  and  learned  their  works.  36.  And  they  served  their  idols;  which  were  a 
snare  unto  them.     37.     Yea,   they   sacrificed  their   sons   and   daughters   unto   devils. 

38.  And  shed  innocent  blood,  even  the  blood  of  their  sons,  and  of  their  daughters, 
whom  they  sacrificed  unto  the  idols  of  Canaan :  and  the  land  was  polluted  vrith  blood. 

39.  Thus  were  they  defiled  with  their  own  works,  and  went  a  whoring  after  their 
own  inventions." 

I  shall  now  make  a  very  short  reference  to  the  Fantheon,  as  your 
correspondent  seems  to  like  the  book. 

Section  4.  Names  of  Jupiter.  "In  different  places,  and  languages,  he  was 
afterwards  called  Beel,  Baal,  Beelphegor,  Beelzebub,  and  Belzemen. " 

Allow  me,  good  gentlemen,  to  refer  you  now  to  a  few  texts  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments,  merely  for  a  specimen  of  the  evidence  which 
is  at  your  service. 

' '  2.  And  Ahaziah  fell  down  througli  a  lattice  that  was  in  his  upper  chamber  in 
Samaria,  and  was  sick:  and  he  sent  messengers,  and  he  said  unto  them,  Go,  and 
inquire  of  Baalzebub,  the  god  of  Ekron,  whether  I  shall  recover  of  this  disease.  3. 
But  the  angel  of  the  Lord  said  to  Elijah  the  Tishbite,  Arise,  go  up  and  meet  the  mes- 
sengers of  the  king  of  Samaria,  and  say  unto  them,  Is  it  not  because  there  is  not  a 
god  in  Israel,  that  ye  go  to  inquire  of  Baalzebub  the  god  of  Ekron?" — Kings  11. 
or  IV.  chap.  i. 

' '  24.  But  when  the  Pharisees  heard  it,  they  said.  This  fellow  doth  not  cast  out 
devils,  but  by  Beelzebub  the  prince  of  devils." — Matthew  xii. 

"25.  But  some  of  them  said.  He  casteth  out  devils  through  Beelzebub  the  chief 
of  the  devils. ' ' — Lulce  xi. 

I  should  hope  that  we  are  no  longer  to  be  annoyed  by  the  unlettered 
folly  of  those  who  assert,  that  in  worshipping  Jupiter,  the  heathens 
adored  the  eternal  God,  the  Creator,  where  it  is  plain  that  they  adored 
the  prince  of  devils.  Nor  am  I  aware  of  the  question  having  been  ever 
seriously  raised  by  any  scholar  as  to  the  independent  power  of  each 
deity,  in  the  estimation  of  the  pagans.  To  the  reader  of  the  Iliad  the 
contentions  of  Juno  and  of  other  celestial  and  infernal  divinities  with 
Jupiter  must  be  familiar.  They  are  equally  gods,  as  he  is ;  he  sumirons 
them  to  his  council,  and  after  the  consultation,  which  is  not  always 
marked  by  kindness  for  each  other,  he  takes  the  votes  and  ratifies  the 
decision,  often  against  his  own  private  inclination. — Thus,  they  are  not 
obsequious  adorers,  created  by  him,  dependent  upon  him,  and  whom  he 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  77 

might  annihilate,  but  they  are  turbulent  and  frequently  vicious  reprovers 
and  opposers  of  his  wishes.  Towards  the  close  of  the  first  book  of  the 
Iliad,  we  find  Jupiter  granting  a  request  of  Thetis,  to  give  victory  to 
the  Trojans;  but  warning  her  to  depart  quickly,  lest  his  loving  spouse 
Juno  should  see  her,  and  give  him  all  the  benefit  of  her  eloquence.  And 
indeed,  some  very  extraordinary  greetings  are  exchanged  between  the 
loving  pair,  when  the  queen  of  gods  makes  the  discovery,  but  her  white- 
armd  majesty  is  cheered  by  Vulcan  with  a  vase  of  nectar.  The  third 
book  opens  with  an  exhibition  of  the  council  chamber  of  the  deities. 
The  fifth  book  shows  us  the  gods  mixed  with  the  opposite  armies  in  bat- 
tle. Passing  over  the  various  other  places  which  exhibit  the  polytheism 
of  Homer,  Virgil  gives  us  a  pretty  good  specimen  towards  the  close  of 
his  third  book.  In  every  page  of  the  Pantheon  the  same  evidence  is 
given.  Even  in  the  very  passage  which  your  correspondent  quotes  from 
Cicero,  paragraph  27,  Essay  2,  that  philosopher  and  orator  writes  of 
the  gods  in  the  plural.  Yet  strange  as  it  may  appear,  the  question  is 
not  only  raised  whether  the  heathens  were  polytheists,  but,  a  certain 
grave  sort  of  being,  in  this  city,  has  asserted  that  they  were  not,  in 
order  that  our  fellow-citizens  might  be  persuaded  that  we  were  idola- 
ters ! ! !  Is  this  what  we  are  to  style  the  refinement  of  our  age  and  the 
progress  of  information?  Indeed,  indeed,  those  gentry  often  remind 
me  of  an  order  once  given  to  a  squad  of  recruits,  "advance  backward, 

three  steps." 

"4.  They  drank  wine,  and  praised  the  gods  of  gold,  of  silver,  of  brass,  of  iron, 
of  ■wood,  and  of  stone." — Daniel,  chap.  v. 

' '  26.  Moreover,  ye  see  and  hear,  that  not  alone  at  Ephesus,  but  almost  through- 
out all  Asia,  this  Paul  hath  persuaded  and  turned  away  much  peoplo,  saying,  that 
they  be  no  gods  which  are  made  with  hands:  27.  So  that  not  only  this  our  craft 
is  in  danger  to  be  set  at  nought:  but  also  that  the  temple  of  the  great  goddess  Diana 
should  be  despised,  and  her  magnificence  should  be  destroyed,  whom  all  Asia  and  the 
world  worshippeth. " — Acts  xix. 

"5.  For  though  there  be  that  are  called  gods,  whether  in  heaven  or  in  earth, 
(as  there  be  gods  many  and  lords  many.") — /  Corinthians  viii. 

"8.  Howbeit,  then,  when  ye  knew  not  God,  ye  did  service  unto  them  which 
by  nature  are  no  gods. ' ' — Galatians  iv. 

Besides  those  passages,  we  have  several  others  in  various  parts  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  which  distinctly  mention  the  polytheism  of  idola- 
ters. I  shall  advert  to  a  very  few  of  the  early  instances.  In  Genesis 
xxxi.  30,  we  read  of  the  gods  of  Laban  having  been  stolen.  In  chapter 
XXXV.  2,  we  find  Jacob  commanding  the  household  to  put  away  strange 
gods,  as  he  was  preparing  by  the  divine  command  to  erect  an  altar ;  and 
in  V.  4,  we  find  that  Jacob  buried  the  gods  and  their  appendages.  That 
the  family  of  the  patriarchs  were  with  great  difficulty  preserved  from 


78  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

the  polytheism  of  Mesopotamia  and  of  Egypt,  is  evident  from  the  neces- 
sity which  Josue  found,  after  so  long  an  interval,  to  give  the  solemn 
injunction,  {Josue  xxiv.  14,  and  so  forth). 

' '  Now,  therefore,  fear  the  Lord,  and  serve  him  in  sincerity  and  truth :  and  put 
away  the  gods  which  your  fathers  served  on  the  other  side  of  the  flood,  and  in  Egypt, 
and  serve  ye  the  Lord. ' ' 

The  choice  he  gives  them,  in  the  next  verse,  is  between  the  gods 
at  the  other  side  of  the  flood,  or  the  gods  of  the  country  of  the  Amorites, 
in  Avhich  they  were  each  given  in  the  plural,  gods,  or  to  serve  the  true 
and  only  God,  given  in  the  singular,  the  Lord :  in  verse  20,  he  tells  them 
that  they  must  cease  to  serve  the  Lord,  if  they  serve  strange  gods :  and 
in  23,  he  tells  them  to  put  away  strange  gods.  This  also  is  shown  fully 
in  Amos  v.,  to  which  St.  Stephen  alludes ;  and  indeed  the  very  words  of 
which,  this  proto-martyr  quotes  in  his  speech,  (Acts  vii),  where  he  states 
that  God  permitted  their  fathers  "to  worship  the  host  of  heaven,"  when 
they  kept  ' '  the  tabernacle  of  Moloch  and  the  star  of  their  god,  Remphan, 
figures  which  they  made  to  worship."  I  need  not  refer  to  the  books  of 
Judges,  of  Kings  and  the  Prophets,  which  teem  with  evidence  equally 
strong,  as  do  the  words  of  the  pagans  themselves ;  and  yet  some  of  our 
good,  sleek,  modern  Christians,  will  say  this  was  not  polytheism ! ! !  Ju- 
piter was  the  supreme  god,  and  the  other  gods  were  saints ! ! !  Let  them 
read  the  fifteenth  book  of  the  Iliad. 

I  now  proceed  to  allude  to  a  few  facts  out  of  many,  that  show  the 
belief  which  the  pagans  had  in  the  virtue  of  idols :  and,  though  it  might 
happen  that  Cicero,  or  a  few  others  formed  an  exception,  I  shall  easily 
show  the  general  impression  to  have  been,  that  there  was  in  particular 
images,  some  virtue  far  beyond  the  mere  value  of  their  materials,  or 
their  memorial  effect.  In  the  sixth  book  of  the  Iliad,  Helenus  tells  Hec- 
tor to  retire  from  the  battle,  and  send  his  mother  and  the  other  principal 
matrons  of  Troy  to  the  tower  in  which  the  Palladium  was  kept;  this, 
you  know,  was  an  image  of  Minerva,  which  so  protected  the  city  as  to 
prevent  the  fall  thereof,  so  long  as  it  was  safely  kept.  Homer  gives  us 
the  words  which  Pope  thus  translates,  as  Hector's  direction  to  his  mother. 

"You,  with  your  matrons,  go!  a  spotless  train. 

And  burn  rich  odours  in  Minerva 's  fane : 

The  largest  mantle  your  full  wardrobes  hold, 

Most  prized  for  art,  and  laboured  o'er  with  gold. 

Before  the  goddess'  honoured  knees  be  spread. 

And  twelve  young  heifers  to  the  altar  led. 

So  may  the  power,  atoned  by  fervent  prayer. 

Our  wives,  our  infants,  and  our  city  spare,  and  so  forth. 

Soon  as  to  Ilion  's  topmost  tower  they  come, 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  79 

And  awful  reach  the  high  Palladian  dome, 
Antenor's  consort,  fair  Theano,  waits 
As  Pallas'  priestess,  and  unbars  the  gates, 
With  hands  uplifted  and  imploring  eyes, 
They  fill  the  dome  with  supplicating  cries. 
The  priestess  then  the  shining  veil  displays. 
Placed  on  Minerva 's  km  es,  and  thus  she  prays : 

So  prayed  the  priestess  in  her  holy  fane; 

So  vowed  the  matrons,  but  they  vowed  in  vain." 

The  subsequent  history  is  well  known.  Two  Greeks  stole  the  image, 
and  the  city  was  then  left  an  unprotected  prey  to  its  enemies.  But,  let 
us  come  to  the  Aeneid,  on  the  same  subject. 

Interea  at  templum  non  aequae  PaUadis  ibant 

Criniius  Iliades  passis,  peplumque  ferebant. 

Suppliciter  tristes,  et  tunsae  pectora  palmis, 

Diva  solo  fixos  oculos  aversa  tenebat. 

1  Aeneid,  483. 

' '  Meantime,  a  pensive,  supplicating  train 

Of  Trojan  matrons,  to  Minerva's  fane. 

In  sad  procession  with  a  robe  repair, 

Beat  their  white  breasts,  and  rend  their  golden  hair. 

Unmoved  with  prayers,  disdainfully  she  frowned. 

And  fix'd  her  eyes,  relentless,  on  the  ground." 

We  have  another  instance  in  the  next  book  of  the  Aeneid,  where 
he  is  describing  the  desolation  of  the  ruined  city,  and  the  carnage. 

Aedibus  in  mediis,  nudogue  sub  aetheris  axe  512 

Ingens  ara  fuit,  juxtaque  veterrima  laxirus, 

Incumbens  arae,  atque  umbra  complexa  Penates, 

Hie  Hecuba,  et  natae  nequicquam  altaria  circum, 

Praecipites  atra  ceu  tempestate  columbae, 

Condensae,  et  Divum  amplexae  simulacra  tenebant. 

' '  Within  the  courts,  beneath  the  naked  sky. 

An  altar  rose,  an  aged  laurel  by; 

That  o'er  the  hearth  and  household-gods  displayed 

A  solemn  gloom,  a  deep  majestic  shade: 

Hither,  like  doves,  who  close  embodied  fly 

Prom  some  dark  tempest,  black 'ning  in  the  sky, 

The  queen  for  refuge  with  her  daughters  ran. 

Clung  and  embraced  their  images  in  vain. ' ' 
In  the  beginning  of  this  book,  Sinon,  in  imposing  upon  the  Tro- 
jans, must  have  spoken  to  them  in  a  manner  that  was  according  to  their 
mode  of  thinking;  and  he,  line  171,  and  so  forth,  states: 

Nee  dubiis  ea  siqna  dedit  Tritonia  monstris. 

Vix  positum  castris  simulacrum;  arsere  coruscae 

Luminibus  flammae  arrectis,  salsusque  per  artus 

Sudor  at,  terque  ipsa  solo  (mirabile  dictu) 


80  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

Emicuit,  parmamq;  ferens  hastamq,  trementem. 

"And  many  a  dreadful  sign 
To  trembling  Greece  proclaim 'd  the  wrath  divine. 
Scarce  to  the  camp  the  sacred  image  came, 
When  from  her  eyes  she  flashed  a  living  flame; 
A  briny  sweat  bedewed  her  limbs  around, 
And  thrice  she  sprung  indignant  from  the  ground; 
Thrice  was  she  seen  with  martial  rage  to  wield 
Her  pond  'rous  spear,  and  shake  her  blazing  shield. ' ' 

I  shall  pass  over  various  other  passages  of  Virgil,  and  I  now  come 
to  an  extract  from  The  Schoolboy  ^s  Fantheon: 

' '  The  Palladium  was  an  image  of  Pallas,  preserved  in  the  castle  of  the  city  of 
Troy;  for,  while  the  castle  and  temple  of  Minerva  were  building,  they  say,  this  image 
fell  from  heaven  into  it,  before  it  was  covered  with  a  roof.  This  raised  everybody's 
admiration;  and,  when  the  oracle  of  Apollo  was  consulted,  he  answered:  'That  the 
city  should  be  safe,  so  long  as  that  image  remained  within  it. '  Therefore,  when  the 
Grecians  besieged  Troy,  they  found  that  it  was  impossible  to  take  the  city,  unless  the 
Palladium  was  taken  out  of  it.  This  business  was  left  to  Ulysses  and  Diomedes,  who 
undertook  to  creep  into  the  city  through  the  common  sewers,  and  bring  away  the  fatal 
image.  When  they  had  performed  the  task,  Troy  was  taken  without  diflSculty.  Some 
say  it  was  not  lawful  for  any  person  to  remove  the  Palladium,  or  even  to  look  upon 
it.  Others  add,  that  it  was  made  of  wood,  so  that  it  was  a  wonder  how  it  could  move 
the  eyes  and  shake  the  spear.  Others,  on  the  contrary,  report,  that  it  was  made  of 
the  bones  of  Pelops,  and  sold  to  the  Trojans  by  the  Scythians,  They  add,  that 
Aeneas  recovered  it,  after  it  had  been  taken  by  the  Greeks  from  Diomedes,  and  car- 
ried it  with  him  into  Italy,  where  it  was  laid  up  in  the  temple  of  Vesta,  as  a  pledge 
of  the  stability  of  the  Eoman  empire,  as  it  had  been  before  a  token  of  the  security 
of  Troy;  and,  lastly,  others  write,  that  there  were  two  Palladia:  one  of  which  Dio- 
medes took,  and  the  other  Aeneas  carried  with  him. ' ' 

The  dedication  of  the  statues,  their  consecration,  and  so  forth,  are 
so  well  known,  as  scarcely  to  need  even  reference.  The  evocation,  or 
exauguratio,  in  opposition  to  inauguratio,  is  equally  well  known :  by  the 
latter  the  divinity  was  called  into  possession  of  the  idol,  or  image,  or 
temple :  by  the  former  he  was  called  out,  or  evoked,  and  the  object  was 
thus  desecrated.  In  chap.  Iv.  of  the  first  book  of  Livy,  it  is  stated  that 
when  various  other  gods  were  turned  out  to  make  room  for  Jupiter  at 
the  building  of  the  Capitol,  the  god  Terminus  would  not  quit.  In  the 
next  chapter  a  delegation  is  sent  by  the  king  of  Delphos,  for  the  purpose 
of  learning  from  the  oracle  of  Apollo,  what  no  Etruscan  or  Roman 
shrine,  or  image,  or  augur  could  resolve.  In  chapter  xxii.  of  the  fifth 
book,  to  complete  the  destruction  of  Veii,  a  religious  ceremony  is  per- 
formed, by  which  Juno,  their  tutelar  deity,  is,  through  her  statue,  in- 
vited to  Rome ;  and  it  being  supposed  that  she  gave  her  assent  by  some 
visible  sign,  the  image  was  borne  along,  and  Camillus  dedicated  her 
temple  on  the  Aventine  hill.     The  lectisterniiim,  which  Livy  mentions 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  81 


in  chap.  xiii.  of  the  same  book,  consisted  in  bringing  the  images  of  Apollo, 
Latona,  Diana,  Hercules,  Mercury,  and  Neptune  to  feast  at  a  well-fur- 
nished table  during  eight  days,  to  render  them  propitious;  and  such 
a  ceremony  was  frequently  used  in  after  times.  In  chap.  xiv.  of  the 
prophet  Daniel,  you  only  give  us  twelve  chapters — we  have  the  history 
of  the  quantity  of  provisions  given  every  day  to  be  consumed  by  the  idol 
Bel,  and  the  manner  in  which  Daniel  exhibited  the  fraud  of  those  who 
eat  the  enormous  feast,  which  the  people  believed  to  be  necessary  for 
the  idol. 

Suetonius  tells  us,  that  when  Augustus  lost  a  number  of  ships  in  a 
storm,  he  was  so  angry  with  Neptune,  that  he  ordered  his  statue  should 
not  be  carried  in  procession  with  those  of  the  other  gods,  at  the  next 
celebration  of  the  Circensian  games.  (Aug.  16.)  Tacitus,  at  the  close  of 
his  book  iv.  of  history,  gives  a  pretty  specimen  of  the  manner  in  which 
the  people  of  Egypt  and  of  Sinope  regarded  an  idol,  which  of  its  own 
accord  went  on  board  the  Egyptian  vessel,  when  the  people  of  Sinope 
refused  their  permission  for  its  removal. 

Several  of  those  idols  were  said  to  have  been  sent  down  from  heaven ; 
and  whosoever  reads  the  eighth  chapter  of  EzeUel,  will  have  abundant 
evidence  of  the  prevarication  of  Judea.  Not  to  revert  to  the  idol  of 
Beelzebub,  which  was  consulted  in  Accaron,  nor  that  of  Apollo  at  Del- 
phos,  nor  so  many  others,  I  shall  exhibit  a  passage  from  the  prophet 
Zachary,  chapter  x. : 

"For  the  idols  have  spoken  vanity,  and  the  diviners  have  seen  a  lie,  and  have 
told  false  dreams." 

I  believe  that  what  has  been  already  adduced,  is  confirmed  by  your 
own  following  of  Beza's  translation  of  verse  35,  chapter  xix.  of  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  in  w^hich  Demetrius  is  made  to  say,  that  the  statue  of 
Diana  at  Ephesus,  was  let  down  from  Jupiter.  St.  Augustin,  in  lib. 
iii.,  De  Doct.  Christ.,  chapter  7,  says:  "I  confess,  they  are  more  besot- 
ted who  look  upon  the  works  of  men's  hands  to  be  gods,  than  they  who 
imagine  the  works  of  God  to  be  such."  Again  he  states  two  various 
classes.  ''They  worship  idols,  either  as  gods,  or  as  signs  and  images  of 
gods."  And  Eusebius:  "Hesiod  thinks  that  there  are  thirty  thousand 
gods  on  earth,  but  I  see  that  there  are  many  more  wooden  and  stone 
creators  of  men."  Hermes  Trismegistus,  as  quoted  by  St.  Augustine, 
lib.  viii.,  chapter  23,  De  civit.  Dei,  is  asked  by  Asclepius  if  he  calls  the 
statues  gods,  to  which  he  answers,  "Yes,  the  statues,  Asclepius,  animated 
with  sense,  and  full  of  spirit,  and  foretelling  what  men  cannot  fore- 
know," and  so  forth,  "bestowing  good  and  evil,"  and  so  forth.  Amo- 
bius  writes,  1.  6,  chapter  27,  that  the  heathens  did  not  adore  the  metal 


82  DOCTRINE  Vol. 


of  the  idol,  but  the  divinity  which  came  to  dwell  in  it  upon  its  dedica- 
tion ;  and  upon  this  ground  the  various  statements  of  the  speaking  and 
acting  of  images  were  not  so  revolting  to  these  people,  as  they  necessarily 
must  be  to  us. 

I  have  now  shown  some  grounds  for  the  statement  which  I  gave  of 
pagan  idolatry.  In  my  next  I  shall  examine  the  precepts  given  by  the 
living  God  upon  this  subject. 

I  remain,  gentlemen, 
Your  obedient,  hiunble  servant, 

B.  c. 

LETTER  X. 

Not  so  the  mind  that  has  been  touched  from  heaven, 

And  in  the  school  of  sacred  wisdom  taught 

To  read  his  wonders,  in  whose  thought  the  world, 

Fair  as  it  is,  existed  ere  it  was: 

Not  for  its  own  sake  merely,  but  for  his 

Much  more  who  fashion 'd  it,  he  gives  it  praise; 

Praise  that,  from  earth  resulting,  as  it  ought, 

To  earth's  acknowledged  Sovereign,  finds  at  once 

Its  only  just  proprietor  in  Him. 

Much  conversant  with  heaven,  she  often  holds 

With  those  fair  ministers  of  light  to  man. 

That  fill  the  skies  nightly  with  silent  pomp. 

Sweet  conference!  inquires  what  strains  were  they 

With  which  heav  'n  rang,  when  ev  'ry  star  in  haste 

To  graduate  the  new  created  earth. 

Sent  forth  a  voice,  and  all  the  sons  of  God 

Shouted   for   joy.  Cowper. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Aug.  3,  1829. 
To  the  Editors: 

Gentlemen: — Upon  the  present  occasion,  I  prefer  being  tedious,  to 
being  indistinct.  I  shall,  therefore,  now  restate  summarily  the  criminal 
characteristics  of  pagan  idolatry;  they  are 

1.  Not  paying  homage  to  God,  the  eternal  Creator. 

2.  Giving  divine  worship  to  creatures. 

3.  Giving  divine  worship  to  devils. 

4.  Giving  divine  wor.ship  to  idols. 

5.  Giving  divine  worship  to  imaginary  beings. 

6.  Using  unnatural,  immoral,  and  indecent  rites. 

Now,  gentlemen,  in  the  Roman  Catholic  invocation  and  honouring 


two        DEFENCE    OF   PRECEDING    SECTION  83 

of  saints,  and  veneration  of  images,  no  one  of  those  ingredients  is  found. 
Your  curious  correspondent  acknowledges  that  we  do  pay  homage  to 
God,  the  eternal  Creator;  and  I  believe  we  may  assume  that  we  are  not 
charged  as  guilty  under  the  sixth  head.  Our  attention  is  therefore  con- 
fined to  the  intermediate  four.  To  understand  a  proposition,  we  ought 
to  know  the  meaning  of  its  terms.  There  is  one  term  common  to  each 
of  those  four  propositions,  viz.,  the  attribute  divine  worship.  And  if 
we  come  to  an  agreement  as  to  the  meaning  of  this  term,  our  whole  diffi- 
culty is  at  an  end.  Now  the  pagans  made  no  distinction  between  the 
worship  due  to  any  two  of  their  superior  gods,  for  instance,  Neptune 
and  Pluto.  So  far  as  the  mental  act  is  concerned,  they  gave  divine  wor- 
ship to  each;  that  is,  the  worship  due  to  God,  by  praying  to  him  as  an 
independent  and  original  deity,  who  immediately,  of  his  own  motion,  and 
from  his  own  sources,  and  by  his  own  power,  bestowed  what  he  gave. 
They  did  not  consider  it  necessary  for  Neptune  to  ask  from  Jupiter  what 
was  demanded  by  his  votary,  nor  did  that  votary  ask  of  Neptune  to 
intercede,  or  to  pray  with  him  to  Jupiter,  for  what  was  considered  Nep- 
tune 's  own  gift ;  nor,  if  it  was  bestowed,  was  the  gratitude  considered 
as  due  to  Jupiter,  but  only  to  Neptune.  To  Neptune  was  the  altar 
raised,  to  him  was  the  priest  consecrated,  to  him  was  the  sacrifice  offered, 
to  him  were  all  the  acts  of  homage  done,  all  terminating  in  him  alone, 
without  reference  to  any  superior.  This  is  divine  worship,  or  the  wor- 
ship due  to  the  divinity,  due  only  to  God.  And  this  homage  was  paid 
to  every  one  of  their  deities  by  the  pagans. 

In  order  to  have  accurate  notions  of  the  meaning  of  words,  we 
should  first  have  accurate  notions  of  the  things  which  they  signify. 
Worship  is  an  act  of  the  mind;  sometimes  it  is  outwardly  expressed, 
but  the  mere  outward  expression  is  not  worship :  the  same  ceremony  or 
deed  which  accompanies  or  expresses  the  mental  act,  if  performed  with- 
out that  mental  act  itself,  would  not  be  worship,  but  hypocrisy;  so  far 
from  being  true  homage,  it  would  be  mockery.  Thus,  the  source  of  wor- 
ship, the  seat  of  worship,  must  be  found  in  the  mind.  The  etymology 
of  the  word  itself  will  here,  as  in  many  other  cases,  greatly  help  us  to  dis- 
cover the  exact  idea  which  it  expresses.  It  is  a  compound  word, — worth, 
with  the  old  Saxon  termination,  ship,  which  signified  "office,"  "em- 
ployment," or  "condition;"  the  worth  signified  "value,"  "excellence," 
' '  importance : ' '  hence  worship  is  properly  ' '  a  condition  of  excellence, ' ' 
and  to  worship  is  of  course  mentally  to  appreciate  the  excellence  of  the 
condition  of  any  being,  and  after  knowing  our  relation  in  its  regard, 
to  do  those  acts  which  that  relation  demands.  The  expression  is  a  gen- 
eric one,  and  regards  various  beings  in  their  several  degrees  of  excel- 


84  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

lence:  hence  Johnson  gives  its  first  meaning,  as  a  verb  active,  "to  adore," 
"to  honour  or  venerate  with  religious  rites," — its  second  "to  respect," 
"to  honour,"  "to  treat  with  civil  deference," — its  third  "to  treat  with 
amorous  respect. ' '  Hence  it  is  obvious  that  worship  in  the  English  lan- 
guage, either  as  a  noun  or  as  a  verb  active,  denotes  a  mental  act,  in 
which  one  reasonable  being  regards  the  various  excellence  of  others,  and 
treats  them  accordingly:  that  it  means  various  kinds  of  respect  to  those 
others,  as  their  excellence  varies,  and  that  one  kind  thereof  is  due  to 
God  for  his  excellence,  and  this  is  divine  worship.  And  since  only  the 
eternal  God  has  this  sort  of  excellence,  it  is  not  lawful  to  give  divine 
worship  to  any  other  being;  hence  the  heathens,  who  gave  it  to  devils, 
to  idols,  to  any  other  creatures,  or  to  imaginary  beings,  were  therein 
highly  criminal ;  and  for  so  doing  they  are  condemned  by  Roman  Cath- 
olics. This  condemnation  and  explanation  ought,  in  common  justice, 
form  a  good  prima  facie  case,  to  save  Roman  Catholics  themselves  from 
the  charge  of  idolatry,  and  strong  testimony  ought  to  be  required  to 
make  them  even  suspected. 

It  is  now  clear  that  in  the  English  language,  the  word  worship 
is  by  no  means  restricted  to  express  the  homage  due  to  God,  unless  it  be 
accompanied  by  the  adjunct  divine.  Let  us  then,  for  clearness'  sake,  call 
the  act  of  divine  worship,  adoration.  It  is  true  that  Johnson  states  ado- 
ration to  be  "the  external  homage  paid  to  the  divinity,  distinct  from 
mental  reverence;"  but  it  is  lawful  to  differ  even  from  the  great  biblio- 
grapher himself,  and  I  humbly  apprehend  that  neither  of  the  examples 
which  he  adduces  will  bear  him  out ;  the  following  are  the  passages : 

"Solemn  and  serviceable  worship  we  name,  for  distinction  sake,  whatsoever 
belongeth  to  the  church  (or  public  society)  of  God,  by  way  of  external  adoration." 
— Hooker. 

"It  is  possible  to  suppose,  that  those  who  believe  a  supreme  excellent  Being,  may 
yet  give  him  no  external  adoration  at  all. ' ' — Stillingfleet. 

Now  in  each  of  those  instances,  if  Johnson  is  correct,  Hooker  and 
Stillingfleet  were  guilty  of  very  glaring  tautology,  for  if  adoration  be 
the  external  act,  as  distinct  from  the  mental,  each  of  those  very  accurate 
writers  has  given  us  the  very  curious  phrase  of  an  "external,  external 
act,"  by  prefixing  the  word  external  to  adoration.  I  apprehend  the  exam- 
ples would  go  to  show  that  adoration  was  the  mental  act  of  reverence  to 
the  Divinity,  which,  when  manifested  by  "solemn  and  serviceable  wor- 
ship," became  external.  And  hence  I  apprehend  that  the  true  genius 
of  the  English  language  exhibits  adoration  to  be  that  species  of  mental 
and  external  worship  which  is  due  to  the  divinity,  in  the  strict  and  prim- 
itive meaning  of  the  term.     The  word  is  one  adopted  from  the  Latin, 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  85 

^'adoratio,"  which  was  appropriately  used  to  signify  the  homage  paid 
by  the  Pagans  to  their  divinities  by  kissing  the  hand,  or  placing  it  on 
their  mouth  whilst  they  approached  or  saluted  the  idols ;  hence  the 
homage  of  the  divinity  was  known  by  the  phrase  apponere  manus  ad  ora, 
or  adorare.  Hence,  according  to  your  own  version.  Job,  in  vindicating 
himself  from  idolatry,  says,  (xxxi.  26,  27,  28), 

"If  I  beheld  the  sun  when  it  shined,  or  the  moon  -walking  in  brightness;  and 
my  heart  hath  been  secretly  enticed,  or  my  mouth  hath  kissed  my  hand;  this  also 
were  in  iniquity  to  be  punished  by  the  judge:  for  I  should  have  denied  the  God  that 
is  above. ' ' 

I  suspect  you  will  find  a  slight  mistake,  and  perhaps  not  accidental, 
in  your  translation  of  I  Kings  xix.  18,  where  the  Lord  says, — 

Protestant  version.  "Yet  I  have  left  me  seven  thousand  in  Israel,  all  the  knees 
which  have  not  bowed  to  Baal,  and  every  mouth  which  hath  not  kissed  him. ' ' 

Catholic  version.  {Ill  Kings  xix.  18).  "And  I  will  leave  me  seven  thousand 
men  in  Israel,  whose  knees  have  not  bowed  before  Baal,  and  every  mouth  that  hath 
not  worshipped  him,  kissing  hands. ' ' 

I  apprehend,  gentlemen,  that  you  would  find  some  difficulty  in  show- 
ing, that  the  worshippers  of  Baal  were  allowed  to  kiss  the  idol,  though 
you  would  find  none  whatever  in  proving  that  Baal  was  adored  by  their 
kissing  of  hands,  as  well  as  by  kneeling,  passing  through  fire,  and  so 
forth. 

By  adoration,  then,  we  mean  that  mental  act  by  which  a  reasonable 
creature  estimates  to  the  best  of  its  power,  the  infinite  excellence  of  the 
Creator,  preferring  him  infinitely  beyond  all  his  works,  humbling  itself 
in  his  presence,  acknowledging  its  dependence  upon  him,  desiring  to  be 
united  to  him  as  the  source  of  perfection,  believing  his  declarations, 
anxious  to  fulfill  his  will,  and  ready  to  use  all  efforts  in  its  execution. 
This  divine  worship  is  due  to  God  alone:  the  manifestation  of  this  in 
"solemn  serviceable  worship"  is  external  adoration. 

We  have  previously  seen  that  worship,  as  a  mental  act,  had  several 
objects,  indeed  it  must  be  of  as  many  kinds  as  there  were  classes  of 
reasonable  beings  in  various  conditions  of  worth  or  excellence,  and 
yet  in  the  manifestation  of  those  several  corresponding  degrees  of  respect, 
man  was  confined  to  a  very  few  external  acts ;  hence  frequently  we  find 
the  same  individual  perform  the  very  same  external  acts  of  respect  to 
beings  of  very  different  degrees  of  excellence,  and  towards  whom  he 
stood  in  very  different  relations.     I  shall  here  adduce  a  few  instances. 

1.     Abraham,  respecting  three  angels,  appearing  as  men. 

Catholic  version.  {Genesis  xviii,  2).  "And  as  soon  as  he  saw  them,  he  ran 
to  meet  them  from  the  door  of  his  tent,  and  adored  down  to  the  ground. ' ' 

Protestant  version.  ' '  And  when  he  saw  them,  he  ran  to  meet  them  from  the 
tent  door,  and  bowed  himself  towards  the  ground. ' ' 


86  DOCTRINE  Vol. 


2.  Lot,  respecting  the  two  angels,  coming  to  Hodom. 

Catholic  version.  {Genesis  xix.  1).  "And  seeing  them,  he  rose  up  and  went 
to  meet  them:  and  worshipped  prostrate  to  the  ground." 

Protestant  version.  "And  Lot  seeing  them,  rose  up  to  meet  them,  and  bowed 
himself  with  his  face  towards  the  ground." 

3.  Abraham,  respecting  the  children  of  Heth. 

Catholic  version.  (Genesis  xxiii.  7).  "Abraham  rose  up,  and  bowed  down  to 
the  people  of  the  land." 

Protestant  version.     "And  Abraham  stood  up  and  bowed  himself  to  the  people 

of  the  land. ' ' 

Catholic  version,     (v.  12).     "Abraham  bowed  down,  before  the  people  of  the 

land." 

Protestant  version.     "And  Abraham  bowed  down  himself  before  the  people  of 

the  land. ' ' 

4.  Abraham  on  the  mountain  going  to  sacrif.ee. 

Catholic  version.  (Genesis  xxii.  5).  "And  after  we  have  worshipped  will  re- 
turn to  you." 

Protestant  version.     "Will  go  yonder  and  worship  and  come  again." 

5.  Abraham's  servant  in  Mesopotamia. 

Catholic  version.  (Genesis  xxiv.  26).  "The  man  bowed  himself  down,  and 
adored  the  Lord." 

Protestant  version.     "And  the  man  bowed  down  his  head  and  worshipped  the 

Lord." 

Catholic  version,  (v.  52).  "Which  when  Abraham's  servant  heard,  falling 
down  to  the  ground,  he  adored  the  Lord." 

Protestant  version.  "When  Abraham's  servant  heard  their  words,  he  wor- 
shipped the  Lord  bowing  himself  to  the  earth." 

Now,  in  those  several  passages  we  have  in  the  Hebrew,  the  self-same 
verb  for  the  several  acts  of  respect,  to  God,  to  men,  and  to  angels ;  the 
translators  who  produced  the  Septuagint,  faithfully  adhere,  in  this 
instance,  to  the  Hebrew,  and  give  us  also  the  same  verb.  Yet  no  person 
will  undertake  to  say  that  the  respect  was  the  same,  for  in  No.  4  we  have 
the  supreme  or  divine  worship  due  to  God,  as  in  both  parts  of  No. 
5 ;  in  both  of  No.  3,  we  have  only  the  worship  due  to  the  children  of 
Heth,  whilst  in  No.  1  and  No.  2  we  have  the  worship  paid  to  three  angels 
by  Abraham,  and  by  Lot  to  two.  I  shall  not  here  stop  to  remark  upon 
some  very  curious  variations  in  the  mode  of  bowing  down,  which  are  to 
be  seen  upon  comparing  your  translation  with  the  original  and  some  of 
the  ancient  versions.  I  shall  content  myself  with  stating  what  I  believe 
is  evident,  that  the  external  act  which  is  described  by  an  unchanging 
verb,  was  the  same  in  all  cases,  but  that  the  nature  of  the  internal  act 
varied,  with  the  mental  respect  intended  to  be  paid  by  him  who  gave  the 
homage.  When  Abraham  bowed  down  to  the  people  of  the  land,  it  was 
human  worship,  not  divine  worship,  when  he  or  his  servant  bowed  down 
to  God,  it  was  di\ine  worship,  not  human  worship,  and  when  Abraham 


two        DEFENCE    OF   PRECEDING    SECTION  87 


or  Lot  bowed  down  to  the  angels,  it  was  not  divine  worship,  nor  was  it 
human  worship,  for  they  bowed  neither  to  God,  nor  to  man. 

I  am  quite  aware  of  its  being  said  that  one  of  the  angels  was  the 
second  person  of  the  Trinity,  and  that  Abraham  with  this  knowledge, 
worshipped  him,  and  therefore  this  was  the  worship  of  God,  not  of  an 
angel.  I  am  just  as  well  disposed  to  concede  as  to  dispute  the  assertion : 
and  will  argue  upon  its  supposed  truth.  In  this  case  Abraham  knew 
that  the  two  who  accompanied  the  divine  person  were  not  gods  nor 
men,  and  yet  the  text  makes  no  discrimination  as  to  their  mode  of  treat- 
ment :  nor  have  we  sufficient  scriptural  evidence  to  sustain  the  assertion, 
that  one  was  the  Son  of  God,  but  there  is  indeed  a  vague  tradition  to 
that  effect.  It  is  true  that  in  the  course  of  the  chapter  Abraham  con- 
verses with  the  Lord ;  and  only  two  angels  subsequently  appear  to  Lot ; 
if,  then,  the  eternal  Son  had  sent  his  two  angelic  companions  to  Sodom, 
whilst  he  conversed  with  Abraham:  in  No.  2,  we  have  only  those  two 
angels ;  suppose  I  again  admit,  in  this  place,  in  order  to  concede  every- 
thing which  can  be  demanded,  that  Lot  mistaking  them  for  men,  paid 
only  human  worship ;  I  shall  have  obtained  all  that  I  sought  for,  which 
is,  that  worship  is  an  internal  act,  expressed  sometimes  by  an  external 
deed,  that  the  degrees  of  worship  vary  with  the  gradations  of  that 
rational  excellence  which  calls  for  our  esteem,  that  frequently  the  same 
external  act  will  express  several  degrees  of  respect,  and,  therefore,  that 
the  mere  similarity  of  the  outward  action  in  any  two  given  cases,  is  not 
sufficient  evidence  of  the  same  description  of  homage  or  worship  being 
paid  in  those  cases.  When  to  this  consideration  we  add  the  fact,  that 
in  early  languages,  especially  in  Hebrew,  there  is  a  comparative  dearth 
of  words,  we  must  necessarily  feel,  that  one  word  will  frequently  express 
several  ideas,  which  are  to  be  distinguished  only  by  circumstances. 
Upon  all  those  grounds  it  is  a  natural  conclusion,  that  the  Hebrews  who, 
by  the  outward  act  of  ''bowing  down,"  manifested  their  respect  for 
God,  for  men,  and  for  intermediate  or  angelic  beings,  should  express  all 
those  several  degrees  and  sorts  of  respect  by  the  verb  "to  bow  down," 
and  thus  has  arisen  that  ambiguity  and  equivocation,  which  has  afforded 
room  to  obscure  and  to  perplex  what  would  otherwise  appear  simple  and 
plain. 

Then  every  species  of  worship  is  not  divine  worship,  and  it  is  law- 
ful to  give  to  human  beings,  by  reason  of  their  excellence,  human  wor- 
ship, as  it  is  lawful  to  give  to  God,  because  of  his  excellence,  divine 
worship.  The  second  is  demanded  by  religion  and  it  is  hence  called  a 
species  of  religious  worship,  the  first  is  not  demanded  by  religion,  but 
by  the  reason  of  civilized  society,  and  is  therefore  called  a  species  of 


88  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

civil  worship.  They  might  both  in  several  instances  be  expressed  by 
the  same  external  act,  which  being  equivocal,  is  explained  in  each  case 
by  the  circumstances.  It  is  clear  then  that  although  divine  worship  be 
due  to  God  alone,  yet  inferior  worship  might  be  paid  to  creatures,  and 
the  criminality  of  the  pagan  consisted  in  paying  divine  worship  to  others 
instead  of  God.  The  manner  in  which  it  is  attempted  to  convict  Roman 
Catholics  of  ilodatry,  is  by  endeavouring  to  prove  that  though  they 
worship  God,  yet  that  they  also  give  divine  worship  to  creatures.  It  is 
said  by  our  opponents,  and  among  others  by  your  curious  correspondent, 
that  every  species  of  religious  worship  is  di\ane  worship,  and  that  our 
acknowledgement,  that  we  do  give  religious  worship  to  creatures,  is 
evidence  that  we  do  give  them  divine  worship.  This  is  as  good  logic  as 
any  miserable  play  upon  a  word  can  exhibit.  Our  answer  is  short.  If 
all  religious  worship  be  divine  worship,  then  we  do  not  give  them  re- 
ligious worship ;  but  if  there  be  various  descriptions  of  religious  worship, 
of  which  divine  worship  is  the  principal,  then  we,  in  giving  a  different 
description  from  that  which  is  divine,  do  not  pay  divine  worship,  so  that 
the  whole  question  resolves  itself  into  the  inquiry,  whether  there  can  be 
a  religious  worship,  which  is  not  divine. 

We  have  previously  seen  what  is  meant  by  divine  worship.  We 
are  now  brought  to  inquire  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  religious. 
Religion,  properly  speaking,  means  "a  double  or  repeated  bond;" 
it  is  that  strict  tie,  by  which  we  are  bound  to  the  service  of  God.  Thus, 
Johnson  defines  it,  "virtue  as  founded  upon  reverence  of  God,  and  ex- 
pectation of  future  reward  or  punishment."  The  first  object  of  religion 
is  undoubtedly  God.  Hence,  all  proper  acts  done  through  reverence 
of  God  are  religious,  and  if  through  reverence  for  God,  other  actions 
than  those  which  regard  him,  as  their  immediate  object,  be  done,  it  is 
clear  that  they  are  founded  upon  that  reverence  of  him,  and  there- 
fore, if  they  be  in  their  own  nature  good,  they  will  also  be  religious  acts. 
Thus  a  man  who  sees  his  fellow-creature  in  distress,  and  being  moved 
with  human  pity,  relieves  him,  does  an  act  of  humanity  or  of  human 
virtue,  which  though  good,  yet  is  not  a  religious  act,  because  it  has 
no  immediate  reference  to  God,  but  to  man,  and  to  human  feelings: 
but  if  upon  seeing  this  distressed  person,  he  through  reverence  of  God, 
and  in  accordance  with  his  precept  of  mercy,  bestows  the  necessary 
aid,  it  is  then  an  act  of  religion.  Religious  is,  therefore,  that  which  is 
done  through  reverence  for  God.  When  we  worship  God  himself,  it 
is  an  act  of  religion,  and  is  divine  worship ;  but  if  through  reverence 
to  God,  we  pay  worship  to  some  excellent  being  nearly  connected  with 
the  Almighty,  it  clearly  is  religious;  but  not  being  such  as  we  would 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  89 


pay  to  God  himself,  it  is  not  divine.  I  shall  adduce  a  few  instances 
which  will  illustrate  my  positions.  We  read  in  Josue  v.,  in  both  ver- 
sions, that  Josue  saw  one  whom  he  thought  to  be  a  man,  standing  op- 
posite him  with  a  drawn  sword : 

Catholic  version.  "13.  And  he  went  to  him,  and  said.  Art  thou  one  of  ours  or 
of  our  adversaries? 

"14.  And  he  answered:  No:  but  I  am  a  prince  of  the  host  of  the  Lord;  and 
now  am  I  come. 

' '  15.  Josue  fell  on  his  face  to  the  ground,  and  worshipping  said :  what  saith 
my  lord  to  his  servant? 

' '  16.  Loose,  saith  he,  thy  shoes  from  thy  feet ;  for  the  place  whereon  thou 
standest  is  holy:     And  Josue  did  as  was  commanded  him." 

Protestant  version.  ' '  13.  Joshua  went  unto  him,  and  said  unto  him,  Art  thou 
for  us  or  for  our  adversaries. 

"14.  And  he  said,  nay ;  but  as  captain  of  the  host  of  the  Lord  am  I  now  come. 
And  Joshua  fell  on  his  face  to  the  earth,  and  did  worship  and  said  unto  him,  What 
saith  my  lord  unto  his  servant? 

' '  15.  And  the  captain  or  the  Lord 's  host  said  to  Joshua,  Loose  thy  shoe  from 
off  thy  foot ;  for  the  place  whereon  thou  standest  is  holy.     And  J  oshua  did  so. ' ' 

Now  it  is  very  clear  that  Josue  did  not  here  pay  mere  human  or 
civil  worship,  and  it  is  equally  clear  that  he  did  not  pay  divine  wor- 
ship: for  it  was  more  than  he  would  pay  to  a  man,  but  less  than 
he  would  pay  to  God.  And  what  was  its  motive  ?  The  civil  station  of 
the  angel  ?  No !  the  exalted  place  of  one  so  nearly  connected  with  God, 
as  to  be  captain  of  his  host;  and  one  of  the  blessed  attendants  before 
his  throne,  as  well  as  his  envoy  to  his  people.  Josue  then  viewed  him 
as  peculiarly  connected  with  God;  and  through  reverence  for  God  he 
worshipped  him:  thus  it  is  religious  worship,  though  not  divine  wor- 
ship, and  even  the  common  and  inanimate  place,  from  its  connexion  with 
God  by  those  circumstances,  became  holy,  and  the  reverence  of  taking 
off  the  shoes,  though  not  divine  worship,  was  religious  respect,  or  ven- 
eration. 

It  was  religious  worship,  not  divine  which  Balaam  paid  to  the 
angel,  {Numbers  xxii.  31).  In  like  manner  when  your  version  informs 
us,  {Daniel  ii.  46),  that  King  Nebuchodonosor  "fell  on  his  face  and 
worshipped  Daniel,  and  commanded  that  they  should  offer  an  oblation 
and  sweet  odours  to  him,"  they  paid  him  religious  worship,  as  God's 
friend  and  messenger,  but  not  divine  worship,  for  the  king  declares 
that  Daniel's  "God  is  a  God  of  gods,"  and  the  next  verse  informs 
us  that  the  king  made  Daniel  a  great  man,  ' '  a  ruler  over  the  entire  pro- 
vinces of  Babylon,"  and  so  forth. 

In  like  manner  Obadiah,  as  he  is  named  in  your  version,  who  was 
a  man  in  high  rule,  owed  no  civil  respect  to  Elias,  or  Elijah,  as  you  have 


90  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

the  name,  a  poor  humble  man,  and  yet  we  read  in  your  book,  /  Kings, 
our  III ;  xviii.  7. 

'  *  And  as  Obadiah  was  in  the  way,  behold  Elijah  met  him ;  and  he  knew  him  and 
fell  on  his  face,  and  said.  Art  thou  that  my  lord,  Elijah?" 

The  respect  which  Abdias  or  Obadiah  here  paid  to  the  prophet 
was  owing  to  his  reverence  of  God,  to  whom  the  prophet  belonged,  and 
with  whom  he  was  connected.  And  in  like  manner,  good  gentlemen, 
when  your  reverend  clergy,  who  have  no  civil  prerogatives,  nor  civil 
place  in  our  state,  are  placed  in  seats  of  honour,  and  first  in  our  pro- 
cessions, and  receive  all  those  attentions  to  their  comfort,  which  every 
man  knows  how  to  prize,  it  is  because  of  their  sacred  character :  that  is, 
their  connexion  with  the  Deity,  whose  ministers  they  are;  hence  it  is 
the  courtesy  of  a  religious  people,  of  a  people  who  respect  religion,  or 
the  service  of  God :  and  of  course  respect  its  ministers ;  it  is  all  religious, 
it  is  done  through  reverence  of  God.  In  like  manner  it  was  neither 
civil  nor  divine,  but  religious  worship  which  the  sons  of  the  prophets 
paid  to  Eliseus,  or  as  you  call  him,  Elisha,  in  //  or  IV  Kings  ii.  15. 

' '  And  when  the  sons  of  the  prophets  which  were  to  view  at  Jericho  saw  him,  they 
said.  The  spirit  of  Elijah  doth  rest  on  Elisha.  And  they  came  to  meet  him,  and 
bowed  themselves  to  the  ground  before  him. ' ' 

Catholic  version.  "And  the  sons  of  the  Prophets  at  Jericho,  who  were  over 
against  him,  seeing  it,  said:  The  spirit  of  Elias  hath  rested  upon  Eliseus.  And 
coming  to  meet  him  they  worshipped  him.  falling  to  the  ground." 

Here  we  have  the  very  same  Hebrew  and  Greek  words,  for  the  wor- 
ship, that  were  used  in  the  places  before  cited,  as  well  as  in  Exodus 
XX.  5,  in  the  commandment  of  forbiding  "to  adore  strange  gods,"  and 
in  Exodus  xxiii.  24,  forbidding  the  worship  of  the  gods  of  the  Gentiles; 
in  the  same  book  xiv.  1,  where  the  Israelites  are  commanded  to  worship 
God,  at  a  distance  from  the  mountain ;  xxxi.  8,  where  they  worship  the 
calf;  in  xxxiii.  10,  where  they  worship  God;  in  xxxiv.  8,  where  Moses 
worships  God;  and  in  a  vast  number  of  other  places,  for  various  mean- 
ings of  divine,  religious  and  civil  worship.  I  should  hope,  that,  after 
those  few  instances  and  explanations,  I  may  be  permitted  to  assert, 
that,  besides  divine  worship  or  adoration  which  is  due  to  God  alone, 
there  has  been  exhibited  by  his  faithful  and  unreproved  servants,  by 
scriptural  evidence,  other  religious  worship  paid  to  his  angelic  and  hu- 
man friends,  and  ultimately  referable  to  himself;  and  honour,  as  well 
as  civil  worship  paid  to  people,  and  rulers,  and  others  in  civil  offices, 
not  specially  referable  to  God,  nor  to  his  honour,  but  to  the  courtesies 
of  ciivilized  life  and  civil  society;  and  all  these  sorts  of  worship  were 
paid  by  the  same  sort  of  ceremony  in  various  instances,  and  have  been, 
in  the  Scriptures,  described  by  the  same  identical  verb,  not  only  in 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  91 


Hebrew,  but  also  in  Greek  of  the  Septuagint,  and  generally  in  the 
Chaldaie  paraphrase.  Thus,  there  is  a  lesser  kind  of  religious  wor- 
ship than  that  which  is  due  only  to  God,  and  which,  though  given  to 
creatures,  is  referable  to  God;  for  it  is  given,  because  of  reverence  for 
him.  Thus,  the  Lord  himself  cautions  the  Israelites  {Exodus  xxiii.  20, 
and  so  forth)  respecting  their  conduct  towards  the  angel  who  was  to 
guide  them,  for  not  only  was  he  his  messenger  and  friend,  but  his  "name 
was  in  him." 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  when  we  pay  this  minor  or  subordinate  religious 
worship  to  creatures  who  are  God's  friends,  that  we  do  not  give  divine 
worship  to  creatures  nor  to  devils;  and  we  do  not  pay  divine  worship 
to  idols,  when  we  pay  to  images  veneration  similar  to  that  which  the 
great  Josue  paid  to  the  holy  place,  and  to  that  which  God  commanded  to 
be  paid  to  his  sanctuary.     {Levit.  xix.  30). 

' '  Ye  shall  keep  my  Sabbaths,  and  reverence  my  sanctuary,  I  am  the  Lord. ' ' 
In  fact,  we  do  not  pay  to  sacred  images  any  veneration  so  great, 
as  the  people  of  Israel  paid  to  the  ark  with  the  images  of  cherubim; 
neither  do  we  pay  divine  worship  to  imaginary  beings. 

Thus,  having  fully  investigated  the  nature  of  pagan  idolatry,  and 
the  nature  of  the  lawful  practices  of  the  Israelites,  and  seen  something 
of  the  genius  of  their  language,  it  only  remains  to  inquire  what  their 
peculiar  situation  w^as,  and  whether  they  were  forbidden  to  make  images. 
They  had  come  from  Egypt,  which  was  pre-eminently  a  land  of 
gross  idolatry,  in  which  several  of  themselves  had  indulged,  and  to  which 
they  had  still  so  strong  an  inclination,  that  we  find  them  easily  drawn 
into  its  practice,  as  well  by  their  own  propensity,  as  by  the  persuasions 
of  the  idolatrous  women  with  whom  they  associated ;  and  they  were  going 
to  occupy  a  land  from  which  a  most  proflgately  idolatrous  race  was  to 
be  ejected ;  and  were  to  be  surrounded,  still,  by  hosts  of  inimical  and  in- 
sidious idolaters.  God  was  desirous  of  preserving  amongst  them  the 
knowledge  of  his  pure,  spiritual  nature,  and  to  guard  them  from  con- 
tamination. He  showed  not  himself  to  them  under  any  bodily  shape, 
for  he  desired  to  impress  upon  their  minds  his  pure  spirituality;  yet 
Ee  did  not  forbid  their  making  images,  because  he  showed  Moses  a  pattern 
of  some  which  he  was  to  make,  and  to  place  upon  the  ark  in  the  sanctu- 
ary, and  which  he  did  so  make  and  place ;  but  they  were  not  likenesses 
of  God,  but  of  his  attendants  and  friends. 

Let  us  now  see  the  precept  as  recorded  in  Exodus  xx: 
Catlwlic  version.     "1.     And  the  Lord  spoke  all  these  words: 
"2.     I  am  the  Lord  thy  God  who  brought  thee  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  out  of 
the  house  of  bondage. 


92  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

' '  3.     Thou  shalt  not  have  strange  gods  before  me. 

"4.  Thou  shalt  not  make  to  thyself  a  graven  thing,  nor  the  likeness  of  any- 
thing that  is  in  heaven  above,  or  in  the  earth  beneath,  nor  of  those  things  that  are 
in  the  Tvaters  under  the  earth. 

' '  5.  Thou  shalt  not  adore  them,  nor  serve  them ;  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God,  mighty, 
jealous." 

Protestant  version.     ' '  1.     And  God  spake  all  these  words,  saying, 

"2.  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God,  which  have  brought  thee  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt, 
out  of  the  house  of  bondage. 

' '  3.     Thou  shall  have  no  other  gods  before  me. 

"4.  Thou  shall  not  make  unto  thee  any  graven  image,  or  any  likeness  of  any- 
thing that  is  in  heaven  above,  or  that  is  in  the  earth  beneath,  or  that  is  in  the  water 
under  the  earth. 

"5.  Thou  shalt  not  bow  down  thyself- to  them,  nor  serve  them;  for  I,  the  Lord 
thy  God,  am  a  jealous  God,"  and  so  forth. 

Roman  Catholics  look  upon  all  this  to  form  one  law  or  precept, 
in  which  the  preamble  is  a  declaration  of  the  right  and  claim  of  the 
great  legislator,  which  is  contained  in  verse  2;  then  a  general  pro- 
hibition, in  verse  3,  of  polytheism,  and  of  abandoning  his  worship; 
then,  in  verse  4,  is  a  special  enumeration  of  the  particulars  in  which 
they  were  most  likely  to  be  tempted,  and  those  are  specially  pro- 
hibited: these  specialties  are  of  two  kinds,  graven  thing,  which  is 
not,  strictly  speaking,  an  image  or  likeness,  as  having  no  prototype; 
and  next  likeness  or  image,  distributed  into  three  classes — objects 
in  the  heavens,  the  stars,  and  so  forth;  in  the  earth,  such  as  men, 
beasts,  and  so  forth;  in  the  waters,  such  as  fishes,  and  so  forth.  After 
this,  follows  the  prohibition  in  verse  5,  which,  unless  it  be  considered 
as  restraining  the  terms  of  verse  4,  will  cause  the  enactment  therein 
to  prohibit  what  God  orders,  in  Exodus  xxv.  18,  And  thou  shalt  make 
two  cheribums  of  gold;  and  would  thus  make  God  contradict  himself. 
But  this  difficulty  ceases  as  soon  as  we  view  verse  5,  restraining  the 
general  expression  of  verse  4,  for,  in  that  case,  the  precept  will  be,  ' '  you 
shall  not  make  idols  nor  images  for  the  purpose  of  giving  them  divine 
worship ; ' '  and  it  will  be  admirably  in  keeping  with  verse  3,  ' '  Thou  shalt 
not  have  strange  gods,  or  other  gods  before  me."  Thus  would  every 
species  of  pagan  idolatry  be  prohibited  effectually,  and  the  making 
of  images,  or  copies  of  known  prototypes ;  and  the  regarding  them  with 
that  respect  and  veneration  which  was  demanded  from  the  people  of 
Israel,  towards  the  ark  and  its  images,  would  be  permitted ;  for  we  read 
in  your  version,  I  Samuel,  or  /  Kings  vi.  19,  that  fifty  thousand  and 
threescore  and  ten  of  the  men  of  Bethshemesh  were  smitten  by  the  Lord 
because  they  looked  into  the  ark;  and  in  II  Samuel  vi.  7,  that  the 
anger  of  the  Lord  was  kindled  against  Uzzah  or  Ozias,  so  that  the  Lord 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  93 


slew  him,  for  merely  taking  hold  of  the  ark  when  it  was  shaken  by  the 
oxen  who  were  carrying  it;  as,  through  reverence  for  God,  none  but 
the  priests  were  permitted  to  touch  it.  We  do  not  require  such  venera- 
tion for  our  images;  and  yet  it  was  not  only  lawful  in  Judea,  but  re- 
quired by  God  himself;  and,  consequently,  his  precept  must  not  be  ex- 
tended to  forbid  what  he  plainly  requires. 

One  remark  more  upon  your  translation  of  verse  4  might  not  be 
amiss.  If  the  original  bore  you  out,  in  giving  us  "graven  images" 
and  "likenesses,"  and  they  both  mean  the  same  thing,  the  original 
precept  would  have  two  serious  legal  faults ;  first,  there  would  be  unmean- 
ing repetition ;  and  next,  there  would  be  no  clause  prohibiting  the  making 
of  those  fanciful  figures  which  had  no  prototypes,  and  which  are  pecu- 
liarly called  idols,  and  which  were  the  most  dangerous  snare  to  the 
people.  But,  gentlemen,  the  fault  is  not  in  the  original,  nor  is  it  in 
the  Pentateuch,  nor  is  it  in  the  Vulgate,  nor  in  the  Chaldiac.  The 
whole  merit  and  credit  is  due  to  persons  who,  after  an  interval  of  fifteen 
centuries,  were,  perhaps,  specially  gifted  to  discover  what  has  previously 
escaped  the  observation  of  the  world. 

I  shall,  in  my  next,  again  pay  my  respects  to  your  friend  with  the 
contradictory  name,  and  remain,  gentlemen. 

Your  obedient,  humble  servant, 

B.  C. 


LETTER  XL 

And  furious  Albion  flings  his  hasty  dart: 

'Twas  feathered  from  a  bee's  transparent  wing, 

And  its  shaft  ended  m  a  hornet's  sting; 

But  tossed  in  rage,  it  flew  without  a  wound, 

High  o'er  the  toe,  and  guiltless  pierced  the  ground. 

Ticlcell. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Aug.  10,  1829. 
To  the  Editors: 

Gentlemen: — It  is  now  clearly  seen  to  be  the  doctrine  of  Roman 
Catholics,  that  divine  worship  is  to  be  paid  only  to  the  eternal  God: 
but  that  it  is  lawful  to  pay  inferior  religious  worship  to  angels  and 
saints,  because  of  their  intimate  connexion  with  God,  as  deriving  from 
him  their  sancity  and  glory ;  and  that  the  honour  paid  to  them  is  refer- 
able to  God,  and  like  every  other  act  of  religion,  is  dictated  by  reverence 
for  him.  Civil  worship  is  paid  in  civil  society ;  that  of  the  highest  grade, 
to  presidents,  governors,  kings,  emperors,  and  so  forth;  then  to  the  var- 


94  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

ious  subordinate  officers,  according  to  their  rank  and  the  regulation  of 
the  state:  the  honour  or  dishonour  given  to  an  ambassador  or  public 
officer  of  any  nation,  is  felt  by  his  government  and  fellow-citizens,  as 
given  to  themselves:  and  the  disrespect  or  obedience  shown  by  any  citi- 
zen to  a  public  officer  of  the  country,  is  looked  upon  as  shown  to  the 
state  itself.  No  sophistry,  no  ingenuity  can  eradicate  this  feeling,  which 
is  so  immediate  a  consequence  of  first  principles  as  to  be  in  a  manner 
identified  with  them. 

There  is  no  language  perfect,  and  it  is  only  by  gradual  process  each 
tongue  approaches  to  perfection.  There  are  various  acts  of  the  mind 
which  we  can  feel  to  be  very  distinct,  for  which  we  have  scarcely 
as  yet,  distinct,  appropriate  expressions:  in  early  times,  in  the  in- 
fancy of  language,  this  imperfection  was  much  greater.  Hence  it 
was,  that  although  in  Hebrew,  and  other  old  dialects,  we  have  ex- 
pressions which  signify  the  external  act  of  adoration,  we  have  no  word 
which  peculiarly  and  exclusively  expresses  the  internal  act,  and  the 
word  "bow  down,"  is  used  for  this  and  for  a  great  variety  of  other 
acts,  wherefore  in  these  tongues  it  would  be  folly  to  expect  distinct 
phrases  to  signify  the  distinct  mental  acts,  for  expressing  each  of  which 
only  two  words  "bow"  and  "serve"  were  used,  one  signifying  a  cere- 
mony, the  other  signifying  a  state  of  occupation,  neither  designating  a 
mental  act. 

We  have  also  seen  that  the  ceremony  which,  amongst  the  Greek 
pagans,  was  usually  practised  in  worship,  was  kissing  the  hand  to  the 
object  which  was  honoured :  hence  their  word  was  a  compound  of  irpos 
"to"  and  Kvo)  "I  kiss,"  their  expression  then  Trpoo-Kwjjo-is  was  used 
as  the  translation  of  the  Hebrew.  It  might  be  a  question  whether  the 
second  part  of  the  compound  might  not  have  been  a  corruption  of 
KVTTTO)  "I  bow  down."  Be  that  as  it  may,  the  word  expressed  a  cere- 
mony, and  not  a  mental  act.  The  Greeks  used  also  the  word  Xarpevo), 
"I  serve,"  w^hich  some  derived  from  Xarpts,  an  acquired  servant,  others 
from  Xa  which  signifies  excess,  and  rpevw  "I  tremble,"  hence  this  was 
also  an  external  act.  In  process  of  time  those  two  words  came  amongst 
the  Greeks  to  signify  di\'ine  worship,  and  were  correlative  to  the  Heb- 
rew words;  they  also  used  the  word  SotjAcuw,  "I  serve,"  from  SovXos, 
"a  menial  servant."     They  had  no  word  to  express  the  mental  act. 

Amongst  the  Latins  we  find  the  same  dearth :  adoratio,  which  meant 
"putting  the  hand  to  the  mouth,"  and  vereor,  "I  fear,"  "I  reverence," 
which  comes  nearer  to  the  expression  of  a  mere  mental  act  than  any 
other,  but  it  was  seldom,  if  ever,  used  to  signify  worship,  but  another 
word  not  unlike  it  in  structure,  though  greatly  dissimilar  in  derivation, 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  95 

veneror  was  quite  usual :  this  was  supposed  to  be  a  compound  of  veniam, 
"favour,"  and  oro,  "1  ask:"  upon  the  same  ground,  I  was  greatly 
inclined  to  suspect  that  adoratio,  might  be  a  compound  of  ad  "to,"  and 
oratio,  "prayer;"  but  the  universal  and  clear  evidence  as  to  the  fact, 
of  the  mode  of  worshipping  by  putting  the  hand  to  the  mouth,  and  all 
the  old  testimonies  were  too  strong  against  this  surmise.  The  verb 
colo,  had  various  meanings;  its  original  and  primitive  meaning  was  to 
"till  or  cultivate  the  ground,"  which  was  a  servile  occupation,  and  also 
beneficial;  amongst  several  subsequent,  accidental  meanings,  that  of 
"paying  court"  to  human  beings  and  "worshipping  the  gods"  were 
added.  St.  Augustin,  who  was  an  excellent  grammarian  informs  us, 
that  even  in  his  day,  a.  d.  420,  there  was  in  Latin,  no  special  word  to 
signify  the  peculiar  worship  due  to  God  alone.  Hence,  though  there  was 
a  distinction  of  worship,  there  was  not  precision  of  language.  That  pre- 
cision in  religious  language  was  generally  the  consequence  of  disputes 
arising  from  difference  of  doctrine  or  of  opinion. 

Those  differences  in  the  Christian  Church,  gave  rise  to  an  appro- 
priation of  the  words  more  by  common  usage,  than  by  authoritative  ap- 
pointment ;  and  hence,  as  the  Xarpis  was  a  higher  servant  than  the 
8ov\os,  his  services  were  of  a  more  honourable  kind,  and  Xarptux 
was  considered  a  higher  worship  than  SouXeia.  Amongst  the  Latins, 
colo  was  a  sort  of  generic  expression,  of  which  adoratio  was  the 
highest  description,  veneratio  was  a  lesser ;  and  thus  the  former 
words  Xarpeia  and  adoratio  were  used  to  express  divine  worship ; 
and  the  latter  SovXetu  and  veneratio,  to  express  that  lesser  religi- 
ous worship  which  we  give  to  angels  and  saints.  Thus  at  present 
we  feel  that  the  origin  of  worship  is  in  the  mind :  the  understanding  must 
first  appreciate  the  value  of  the  object;  the  will  next  assents  to  this 
estimation,  and  determines  to  pay  the  worship,  which  is  frequently 
done  only  by  interior  acts  of  homage,  and  mental  devotion,  such  as  prayer, 
gratitude,  pure  love  of  charity,  praise,  and  so  forth,  which  all  are  done 
in  the  recesses  of  the  heart;  or  they  may  be  subesquently  expressed  by 
outward  acts,  such  as  vocal  prayer  or  ceremonial  worship.  In  English 
we  give  the  common  name  of  religious  worship,  to  all  that  which  is  paid 
to  God,  or  to  what  is  immediately  connected  with  him.  When  it  is  paid 
to  himself,  the  understanding  appreciates  him,  alone,  eternal,  the  source 
of  all  good,  above  all  estimable  value,  with  no  equal ;  the  will  desires 
to  give  him  the  highest  honour  and  the  most  perfect  worship  terminating 
in  himself,  as  alone  the  best  and  highest.  This  we  call  adoration,  the 
school  term  for  which  is  latria. 

When  worship  is  paid  to  an  angel  or  saint,  the  understanding  views 


96  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

and  appreciates  him  as  a  created,  dependent,  limited  being,  raised  by 
God  to  some  high  grade  of  virtue  and  excellence,  •  by  reason  of  which 
he  deserves  our  esteem ;  it  also  considers  him  as  a  permanent  friend 
of  God,  united  to  him  by  charity,  partaking  in  a  limited  degree  of  his 
holiness,  protected,  loved,  cherished  and  upheld  by  God,  and  a  benevo- 
lent fellow-worshipper  with  us,  who  can  intercede  on  our  behalf  with 
that  God,  to  whom  we  both  pray, — whom  we  both  adore.  The  will 
then  desires  to  honour  this  friend  of  God,  though  reverence  for  God 
himself;  and  therefore  religiously;  we  call  this  religious  honour  or  ven- 
eration, and  if  we  ask  the  intercession  of  the  being  whom  we  thus  honour, 
we  call  it  invocation :  thus  we  say  that  ' '  angels  and  saints  may  be  hon- 
oured and  invoked,  and  that  they  offer  prayers  to  God,  on  our  behalf;" 
the  school  term  for  this,  is  dulia ;  and  as  God  has  more  highly  favoured 
the  blessed  Virgin,  we  honour  her  more  than  we  do  any  other  saint; 
the  term  is  an  extension  of  dulia,  and  is  called  hyperdulia,  or,  an  hon- 
our of  the  highest  kind  given  to  a  creature. 

When  we  make  images,  our  object  is,  by  their  aid  to  impress  our 
minds  more  deeply,  that  we  may  be  excited  better  to  pay  the  due  wor- 
ship to  those  whom  they  represent:  we  do  not  look  upon  them  as  pos- 
sessing any  virtue  in  themselves,  nor  as  able  to  help  or  hear  us ;  they  are 
not  therefore  idols. 

When  we  worship  before  an  im.age  of  Christ,  if  the  mind  be  carried 
away  to  Christ  himself,  the  worship  we  pay  is  latria  or  adoration ;  we 
only  regard  the  great  original,  of  whom  the  image  reminds  us. 

When  we  worship  before  the  image  of  a  saint,  or  representation  of 
an  angel,  if  the  mind  be  carried  altogether  to  the  prototype,  our  worship 
is  dulia,  greater  or  lesser,  as  we  appreciate  the  object,  which  it  repre- 
sents. 

If  we  consider  the  image  itself,  as  in  some  degree  connected  with 
the  service  of  God,  and  formed  to  aid  us,  in  elevating  our  mind  to  contem- 
plate heavenly  things,  it  acquires  in  our  estimation,  a  sort  of  value  like 
that  of  the  ark  with  its  cherubim,  like  that  which  you  j'ourselves  give 
to  your  communion  cups,  wliich  you  would  not  place  upon  your  table 
for  every  day  use,  through  reverence  for  God,  in  whose  service  they  are 
used,  and  to  which  they  are  devoted,  lest  you  might  provoke  him,  as 
did  the  monarch  of  Babylon.  {Daniel  v.  3).  To  steal  them  is,  by  you, 
viewed  not  as  common  theft,  but  sacrilege.  We  call  this  religious  venera- 
tion, as  we  call  family  veneration,  that  respect  and  attachment  which 
we  feel  towards  our  family  pieces.  And  as  we  call  civil  veneration,  that 
respect  which  is  paid  to  the  statues  or  images  of  General  Washington, 
of  William  Penn,  and  other  great  benefactors  of  the  civilized  world. 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION  97 


As  through  civil  respect,  and  not  for  mere  decoration,  our  Congress 
has  placed  in  its  Hall  of  Representatives,  the  picture  of  General  Lafay- 
ette, the  benefactor  of  our  country;  so  through  religious  respect,  for 
a  purpose  beyond  that  of  mere  decoration,  we  place  in  our  churches, 
the  pictures  of  holy  men,  and  holy  women ;  the  benefactors  of  the  Chris- 
tian community,  whom  they  edified  by  their  virtues ;  whom  they  instruct- 
ed by  their  examples. 

I  now  return  to  your  correspondent.  In  his  23d  paragraph,  he 
has  the  question: 

"Now  whether  it  be  Latria,  or  anything  else,  does  not  the  sense  of  the  Eoman 
Catholic  Church  seem  plainly  to  be,  that  religious  honour  should  be  paid  to  images!" 

And  further  down  the  following  assertion : 

"His  dulia  might  be  an  inferior  worship;  but  if  it  was  worship  at  all,  it  was 
idolatry. ' ' 

There  is  not  a  child  that  has  learned  its  Catechism  in  our  Church, 
which  could  not  feel  that  the  whole  force  of  the  sophism,  was  centered 
in  the  ambiguity  of  the  phrases,  worship  in  the  last,  and  religious  honour, 
in  the  first.  Nay,  your  correspondent  himself  admits  the  sufficiency 
of  our  distinction,  in  the  following  passage  of  paragraph  25 : 

"We  should  not  hesitate  to  admit  that  there  are  among  them  many  who  are 
capable  of  the  elevated  abstraction  of  enlightened  piety,  which  saves  them  from  any 
necessity  or  danger  of  rendering  in  their  hearts,  any  honour  which  is  due  to  God,  to 
the  image  of  his  creature.  But  we  must  be  permitted  to  doubt  whether  the  multitude 
of  Eoman  Catholic  worshippers  are  not  thus  subjected  to  a  temptation  of  having  their 
spiritual  conversation  more  on  earth  than  in  heaven." 

Then  in  fact,  provided  we  be  "capable  of  the  elevated  abstraction 
"  of  enlightened  piety ' ' — he  says,  that  we  commit  no  idolatry ;  for  then  we 
do  not  give  ' '  any  honour  which  is  due  to  God,  to  the  image  of  his  crea- 
ture." If  I  at  all  understand  this;  he  deserts  his  own  sophism,  and 
admits  our  distinction.  He  only  fears  that  our  ignorant  multitude  will 
not  be  so  elevatedly,  abstractedly  enlightened.  Upon  that  score,  gentle- 
men, you  may  soothe  his  troubled  soul;  for  our  multitude  are  taught 
either  in  w^ords  or  substantially,  the  following  chapter  of  the  Catechism, 
which  they  are  made  distinctly  to  understand. 

LKSSON  XVIII.     First  Commandment,  continued. 

"Q.     What  else  is  forbidden  by  the  first  commandment? 

A.     To  give  to  any  creature  the  honour  due  to  God. 

Q.     Are  we  forbidden  to  honour  saints? 

A.  No;  if  we  honour  them  but  as  God's  special  friends  and  faithful  servants, 
and  do  not  give  them  supreme  or  divine  honour  of  adoration,  which  belongs  to  God 

alone. 

Q.  How  do  Catholics  distinguish  between  the  honour  which  they  give  to  God, 
and  the  honour  which  they  give  to  the  saints,  as  they  pray  to  both? 


98  DOCTRINE  Vol. 


A.  Of  God  alone  they  beg  grace  and  mercy ;  and  of  the  saints  they  only  ask  thp 
assistance  of  their  prayers.      {Tobias  xi.  12). 

Q.  Is  it  lawful  to  recommend  ourselves  to  the  angels  and  saints,  and  to  ask 
their  prayers? 

A.  Yes;  since  by  doing  so,  we  may  be  heard  by  them,  and  obtain  their  prayers 
in  addition  to  our  own.     {Luke  xv.  7). 

Q.     Can  the  blessed  spirits  in  heaven  know  when  we  pray  to  them? 

A,  Yes;  And  there  shall  be  joy  before  the  angels  of  God,  upon  one  sinner 
doing  penance.     {Luke  xv.  10). 

Q.     Do  the  blessed  spirits  interest  themselves  in  our  behalf? 

A.  Yes;  and  have  frequently  done  so,  with  great  zeal  and  effect.  {Zach.  i. 
10,  12). 

Q.  Does  it  not  take  from  the  honour  due  to  God  and  infringe  upon  the  merits  of 
Christ,  to  pray  to  angels  and  saints  as  intercessors? 

A.  No;  it  does  not,  as  it  does  not  take  from  the  honour  due  to  God  to  pay 
respect  to  our  parents  and  superiors,  nor  infringe  upon  the  merits  of  Christ  to  ask 
the  prayers  of  our  fellow-creatures  upon  earth,  and  to  pray  for  them.  {Thessal.  v. 
25;  James  v.  16). 

Q.     Why  do  Catholics  kneel  before  the  images  of  Christ  and  his  saints? 

A.     To  honour  Christ  and  his  saints,  whom  these  images  represent.      {Exod.  xxv). 

Q.  Is  not  the  making  of  images,  and  the  bowing  down  before  them,  forbidden 
by  the  first  commandment? 

A.  The  making  of  images  is  not  forbidden  by  the  first  commandment;  for  God 
ordered  Moses  to  make  images. —  {Exod.  xxv).— and  the  people  bowed  down  before 
them  in  prayer  in  the  Jewish  Temple.      (2  Paralip.  iii). 

Q.     What  use  of  images  is  forbidden  by  the  first  commandment? 

A.     That  use  which  idolaters  made  of  them  when  they  served  them  as  gods. 
Q.     Is  it  proper  to  show  any  mark  of  respect  to  the  crucifix,  and  to  the  pictures 
of  Christ  and  his  saints? 

A.  Yes;  because  they  relate  to  Christ  and  his  saints,  being  representations  and 
memorials  of  them.     {Acts  xix.  12;  Matt.  ix.  21). 

Q.     Why  do  Catholics  honour  the  relics  of  the  saints? 

A.  Because  their  bodies  had  been  the  temples  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  after  their 
resurrection  will  be  honoured  and  glorified  for  ever  in  heaven. 

Q.     May  we  then  pray  to  the  crucifix,  or  to  the  images  or  relics  of  the  saints? 
A.     By  no  means;   for  they  have  neither  life  nor  sense,  nor  power  to  hear  or 

help  us. 

Q.     Why  then  do  we  pray  before  the  crucifix,  and  before  the  images  and  relics 

of  the  saints? 

A.  Because  they  enliven  our  devotion,  by  exciting  pious  affections  and  desires 
and  by  reminding  us  of  Christ  and  his  saints.      {Exod.  xxv.  18;  John  iii.  14). 

Q.     Is  there  anything  else  forbidden  by  the  first  commandment? 

A.  Yes;  all  attempts  at  dealing  and  communication  with  the  devil;  and  inquir- 
ing after  things  lost,  hidden,  or  to  come  by  improper  means. 

Q.  Is  it  also  forbidden  to  give  credit  to  dreams,  to  fortune-telling,  and  the  like 
superstitions? 

A.  Yes;  and  all  incantations,  charms,  and  spells;  and  superstitious  observa- 
tions of  omens;  and  such  foolish  remarks,  are  also  very  sminl"— Catechism  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Faith. 


two        DEFENCE    OF   PRECEDING    SECTION  99 

Now  at  least  his  holy  anxiety  may  cease,  and  perhaps  it  might  not 
be  amiss  to  inform  him  for  the  greater  consolation  of  his  spirit,  that  the 
writer  of  this,  although  he  has  had  pretty  ample  opportunity  of  mixing 
amongst  the  young  and  the  ignorant  of  various  Catholic  nations,  never 
yet  found  one  of  them  who  had  not  "elevated  abstraction  of  enlighten- 
ed piety ' '  sufficient  to  know  that  the  honour  due  to  the  eternal  God,  was 
not  to  be  paid  to  an  image ;  perhaps  one  or  two  illustrations  would  help 
to  make  it  appear  that  he  does  not  speculate.  The  first  is  a  very  pain- 
ful avowal.  He  has  more  than  once  had  occasion  to  inquire,  whether 
there  was  any  truth  in  particular  assertions  made  by  persons  differing 
from  him  in  religion,  where  the  names  and  places  of  abode  were  stated, 
of  those  who  were  said  to  be  as  ignorant  as  our  multitude  is  here  rep- 
resented to  be,  and  he  uniformly  found  the  statement  to  be  totally 
false.  Those  occurrences  are  not  new,  nor  unusual:  they  are  like  the 
statement  made  some  time  since  by  the  holy  men  who  were  employed 
to  distribute  Bibles  in  the  sixth  ward,  New  York ;  that  they  found  with 
one  family,  believed  to  be  Irish,  a  Catholic  Bible,  in  which  the  second 
commandment  was  omitted.  The  corporation  of  the  Seminary  pledged 
themselves  to  pay  a  sum  of  five  hundred  dollars  to  the  Bible  Society, 
or  to  any  person  who  would  produce  such  a  Bible.  The  propagators 
of  the  falsehood  did  not  accept  the  offer,  nor  retract  the  falsehood. 
The  notions  of  our  multitude  upon  this  subject,  are  more  accurate  than 
are  those  of  your  correspondent  himself,  and  it  is  by  no  means  creditable 
to  his  modesty  or  good  sense  to  make  the  charge  which  he  has  put  forth. 
I  shall  bring  his  assertion  to  a  practical  test.  I  hereby  pledge  myself, 
that  if  within  three  months  from  the  date  of  this  letter,  he  shall  point 
out  any  one  of  our  multitude,  black,  brown,  or  white,  that  has  had  the 
opportunity  to  sufficient  instruction,  or  been  admitted  to  confirmation, 
or  communion,  who  shall  upon  examination,  be  found  to  believe  that  the 
honour  which  is  due  exclusively  to  God,  may  be  lawfully  paid  to  any 
creature,  living  or  dead ;  I  shall,  through  the  hands  of  the  printer  of  the 
Miscellany,  who  will  give  my  name  if  I  fail,  pay  one  hundred  dollars 
to  you,  to  be  disposed  of  as  your  correspondent  may  please.  Gentle- 
men, your  correspondent  might  in  his  own  estimation  take  this  aristo- 
cratic assertion  regarding  the  multitude,  as  a  proof  of  his  superior  in- 
tellect; I  beg  to  inform  him,  that  with  me  at  least,  it  always  passes 
as  a  mark  of  quite  another  kind, — and  the  distinction  which  some  of  your 
writers  affect  to  draw  between  our  enlightened  and  our  illiterate  Cath- 
olics, is  taken  amongst  us,  by  no  means  as  a  compliment :  rich  and  poor, 
learned  and  unlearned,  our  doctrine  is  the  same;  we  have  no  genteel 
belief,  no  aristocratic  orthodoxy;  we  are  all,  whether  emperors,  kings, 


100  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

popes,  beggars,  or  slaves,  members  of  one  church,  holding  fast  the  same 
faith ;  and  when  any  man  grows  so  fastidious  as  to  imagine  that  God  Al- 
mighty revealed  more  or  less  for  his  negro  than  for  himself,  he  ceases 
to  be  a  Roman  Catholic.  I  know  not  a  more  insulting,  nor  a  more  un- 
founded distinction  that  this,  which  is  here  insinuated.  Some  of  our 
poorest  people  are  some  of  those  best  informed  in  the  doctrines  of  our 
church,  and  some  of  our  most  wealthy,  are  some  of  those  most  ignorant 
of  our  tenets.  I  have  known  poor  children  not  ten  years  of  age,  who 
have  more  clear  notions  of  the  nature  of  idolatry,  and  the  meaning  of 
what  you  call  the  first  two  commandments,  than  your  correspondent 
appears  to  possess. 

Then  if  the  meaning  of  this  phrase  "that  all  Roman  Catholics  in- 
tentionally violate  this  commandment,  in  rendering  the  due  honour  and 
veneration,  which  their  church  requires,  to  the  images  of  the  Virgin  Mary, 
and  so  forth,  should  not  be  asserted,"  be,  that  they  who  do  not  "render 
in  their  hearts  any  honour  which  is  due  to  God  (divine  worship,  I  pre- 
sume) to  the  image  of  his  creature,"  do  not  violate  the  precept;  I  will, 
upon  a  palpable  fact  united  to  this  principle,  claim  for  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  full  acquittal  of  its  violation.  That  palpable  fact, 
your  correspondent  so  far  from  denying,  appears  to  admit;  it  is, 
that  persons  of  enlightened  minds  capable  of  that  abstraction  which  con- 
siders God  and  the  image  distinct  and  distinguished,  do  not  give  to  the 
image  the  honour  due  to  God,  thus  do  act  according  to  the  true  spirit  of 
the  Church.  He  only  fears  that  the  multitude  are  not  capable  of  this 
abstraction.  If  these  things  be  so,  the  spirit  of  the  church  and  the 
conduct  of  its  enlightened  members  are  not  in  violation  of  the  precept. 
The  only  crime  then  of  which  we  would  be  guilty,  would  be  imprudence 
in  placing  the  images  before  the  ignorant  multitude,  with  the  danger 
of  their  committing  idolatry.  But  this  danger  does  not  exist,  it  is  all 
fancy;  it  will  cost  me  one  hundred  dollars  if  it  be  anything  more  than 
a  mere,  unfounded  surmise  of  your  correspondent.  Now,  since  we  have 
our  own  experience  against  his  surmise,  every  good  logician  would  tell 
us,  that  we  must  reject  his  conclusion,  and  hence,  even  upon  his  own 
showing,  the  precept  is  not  violated  in  our  church. 

Yet  still,  your  correspondent  will  not  acquit  us  of  violating  the  com- 
mandment, for  he  concludes  his  paragraph  25,  wuth  the  following  pas- 
sage. 

"While,  however,  this  may  be,  we  may  confidently  ask,  is  not  the  commandment 
violated  by  Roman  Catholics,  as  a  body,  by  the  fact  of  their  erecting  images  in  their 
churches,  to  which  it  is  obligatory  to  render  honour  and  veneration?  And  if,  as  a 
body,  they  conscientiously  obey,  in  this  particular,  the  authority  of  their  church,  must 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION        101 

they  not,  as  a  body,  violate  the  second  commandment  'without  scruple?'     I  see  not 
how  it  can  be  otherwise. ' ' 

Upon  this,  I  would  remark,  merely  for  the  sake  of  precision,  that 
it  is  not  obligatory  upon  Catholics  to  render  honour  or  veneration  to 
images,  nor  to  place  them  in  churches.  It  is  permitted,  not  commanded ; 
and  it  is  a  doctrine  of  the  church  that  this  permission  is  not  contrary 
to  the  law  of  God,  but  in  conformity  therewith.  Hence  the  person 
who  would  neither  erect  nor  venerate  an  image,  would  not  cease  to  be  a 
Catholic ;  but  he  who  should  assert  that  the  erection  or  veneration  was 
unlawful,  would  err  from  the  Faith.  It  would  have  saved  me  much 
trouble  if  your  correspondent  used  precise  terms.  However,  perhaps 
he  is  not  to  blame :  for  terms  are  the  expression  of  ideas ;  and  where 
the  ideas  are  confused,  the  expression  cannot  be  accurate. 

The  ground  upon  which  he  endeavors  to  sustain  his  position  is, 
that  the  commandment  forbids  what  we  permit.  I  believe  we  have 
seen  that  this  is,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  a  great  mistake.  He  in  the  same 
paragraph  brings  to  the  aid  of  his  interpretation,  the  following  texts. 

Catholic  version.  (Levit.  xxvi.  1).  "I  am  the  Lord  your  God:  you  shall  not 
make  to  yourself  any  idol  or  graven  thing,  neither  shall  you  erect  pillars,  nor  set  up 
any  remarkable  stone  in  your  land  to  adore  it :  for  I  am  the  Lord  your  God. ' ' 

Protestant  version.  "Ye  shall  make  no  idols,  nor  graven  image,  neither  rear 
up  a  standing  image,  neither  shall  ye  set  up  any  image  of  stone  in  your  land,  to  bow 
down  unto  it :  for  I  am  the  Lord  your  God. ' ' 

Catholic  version.  (Deut.iv).  "15.  Keep  therefore  your  souls  cheerfully.  You 
saw  not  any  similitude  in  the  day  that  the  Lord  God  spoke  to  you  in  Horeb  fro)m 
the  midst  of  fire: 

' '  16.  Lest  perhaps  being  deceived  you  might  make  to  you  a  graven  similitude,  or 
image  of  male  or  female. ' ' 

Protestant  version.  "15.  Take  ye  therefore  good  heed  unto  yourselves;  for 
ye  saw  no  manner  of  similitude  on  the  day  that  the  Lord  spoke  unto  you  in  Horeb 
out  of  the  midst  of  the  fire: 

' '  16.  Lest  ye  corrupt  yourselves,  and  make  you  a  graven  image,  the  similitude 
of  any  figure,  the  likeness  of  male  or  female. ' ' 

Having  previously  examined  the  text  of  the  original  precept  {Exod. 
xx),  and  found  that  it  did  not  prohibit  the  making  images,  but  the 
making  them  for  idolatrous  purposes ;  and  having  seen,  I  trust  clearly, 
that  the  Israelites  not  only  innocently,  but  religiously  held  those  which 
were  made  by  God's  command  in  high  esteem  and  reverence,  not  for 
any  inherent  sanctity  which  they  possess,  but  because  of  their  relation 
to  God  himself ;  I  now  proceed  to  examine  whether  the  text  of  Leviticus 
does  prohibit  more  than  that  of  Exodus  appears  to  do.  The  words  print- 
ed above  in  italics  are  found  in  the  Protestant  Bible,  but  not  printed 
in  the  quotation  of  your  correspondent. 

I  believe  it  will  be  admitted  that  the  passage  in  Leviticus  is  not  a 


102  DOCTRINE  Vol. 


new  enactment,  but  is  a  repetition  of  that  in  Exodus,  with  some  more 
special  enumerations.  Your  correspondent  agrees  with  me  in  this,  for 
he  adduces  those  texts  to  explain  and  confirm  the  true  meaning  of  Exo- 
dus. Now  if  construing  Exodus  xx.  to  forbid  the  making  of  an  image 
would  be  a  contradiction  to  Exodus  xxv.  18,  as  we  saw  it  manifestly 
would,  no  number  of  texts  adduced  to  prove  that  Exodus  xx.  4,  prohibits 
image-making  will  lessen  that  contradiction  or  palliate  the  absurdity 
of  such  a  construction.  You,  gentlemen,  cannot  do  what  your  church 
declares  she  cannot  do.  Article  xx.  "Neither  may  it  [the  Church] 
so  expound  one  place  of  Scripture,  that  it  be  repugnant  to  another." 
In  truth,  this  text  of  Leviticus  is  but  an  enumeration  of  two  new  partic- 
ulars, which  though  not  therein  specially  expressed,  came  under  the 
general  description  in  Exodus  xx.  4,  and  the  object  for  which  they 
should  be  erected  in  order  to  come  under  the  description  of  idolatry, 
viz.  "adoration,"  "bowing  down,"  is  also  specially  expressed  in  Exodus 
XX.  5,  as  in  Leviticus  xxvi.  1. 

The  Catholic  version  exhibits  to  me  four  distinct  objects  of  speci- 
fication, idol,  and  graven  thing,  which  we  have  previously  found  speci- 
fied and  described  in  Exodus,  in  addition  to  which  we  have  here,  pillar, 
and  remarkable  stone,  which  are  new  specifications.  I  must  leave  to  some 
better  intellect  than  mine,  to  distinguish  the  specifications  of  your  text 
in  its  imagery,  and  to  inform  us  why  idol  is  specially  introduced,  if  every 
image  for  a  religious  purpose  be  an  idol.  That  it  was  lawful  for  God's 
servants,  both  before  and  after  this  prohibition  of  Leviticus,  to  erect 
remarkable  and  consecrated  stones,  provided  they  did  not  erect  them  for 
the  purpose  of  adoring  them,  which  the  heathens  did,  I  shall  show  by 
one  or  two  Scriptural  instances,  and  I  shall  adduce  an  outline  of  evi- 
dence sufficient  to  show  that  the  purposes  of  the  heathen  were  idolatrous, 
and  altogether  dissimilar  to  our  object  in  making  images  of  marble 
or  other  stone,  which  are  the  only  kind  that  might  come  under  your 
designation,  unless  a  standing  image  be  in  contradiction  to  the  cherubim 
which  were  kneeling  figures,  if  our  traditions  be  correct. 

Jacob  was  not  an  idolater.     I  use  your  own  version  of  Genesis 

xxviii. 

' '  18.  And  Jacob  rose  up  early  in  the  morning,  and  took  the  stone  that  he  had 
put  for  his  pillow  and  set  it  up  for  a  pillar,  and  poured  oil  upon  the  top  of  it.  19. 
And  he  called  the  name  of  that  place  Bethel:  but  the  name  of  the  city  was  called 
Luz  at  the  first.  20.  And  Jacob  vowed  a  vow,  saying,  If  God  will  be  with  me,  and 
will  keep  me  in  this  way  that  I  go,  and  will  give  me  bread  to  eat,  and  raiment  to 
put  on,  so  that  I  come  again  to  my  father's  house  in  peace;  then  shall  the  Lord  be 
my  God:  21.  And  this  stone  which  I  have  set  for  a  pillar,  shall  be  God's  house," 
and  so  forth. 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION        103 


God  did  not  command  an  idolatrous  act,  yet  we  read  Joshua  iv. 

' '  1.  And  it  came  to  pass,  -when  all  the  people  were  clean  passed  over  Jordan, 
that  the  Lord  spake  unto  Joshua,  saying,  2.  Take  you  twelve  men  out  of  the  people, 
out  of  every  tribe  a  man.  3.  And  command  them,  saying,  take  you  hence  out  of  the 
midst  of  Jordan,  out  of  the  place  where  the  priests '  feet  stood  firm,  twelve  stones,  and 
ye  shall  carry  them  over  with  you,  and  leave  them  in  the  lodging  place,  where  ye  shall 
lodge  this  night.  ...  8.  (The  children  of  Israel  brought  the  stones).  9.  And 
Joshua  set  up  twelve  stones  in  the  midst  of  Jordan  in  the  place  where  the  priests 
which  bare  the  ark  of  the  covenant  stood :  And  they  are  there  to  this  day.  .  .  .20. 
And  those  twelve  stones  which  they  took  out  of  Jordan,  did  Joshua  pitch  in  Gilgal. ' ' 

He  then  informs  them  of  the  reason,  when  the  children  should  ask 
what  mean  the  stones,  that  they  should  be  informed, — and  then  for  the 
religious  purpose. 

"24.  That  all  the  people  of  the  earth  might  know  the  hand  of  the  Lord,  that 
it  is  mighty:  that  ye  might  fear  the  Lord  your  God  for  ever." 

That  is,  this  religious  memorial  preserved  the  recollection  of  the 
opening  of  the  Jordan,  and  thus  reminded  the  people  of  the  power  and 
might  of  God,  as  well  as  of  his  mercy,  thus  powerfully  exciting  to  his 
worship.  Probably  you  may  think  that  the  Scriptures  were  evidence 
enough,  and  that  those  stones  "subjected  the  multitude  to  a  temptation 
of  having  their  spiritual  conversation  more  on  earth  than  in  heaven." 
I  can  only  answer,  that  I  prefer  God's  wise  regulation,  to  the  surmise  of 
a  man  whose  name  is  contradiction.  I  have  thus  shown,  that  neither 
the  erection  of  images,  nor  of  remarkable  stones  was  prohibited.  What 
then  was  prohibited?  What  the  heathens  did.  I  shall  give  you  a  few 
specimens. 

Arnobius  in  his  work  Contra  Gentes,  lig.  i.,  writes :  Si  quando  con- 
spexeram  ruhricatum  lapidem,  et  ex  olivi  unguine  lubricatum,  tanquam 
inesset  vis  presens,  adidahar,  affahar.  "Whenever  I  had  seen  a  red- 
dened stone,  and  make  smooth  with  the  ointment  of  olives,  I  used  to  speak 
to  it,  I  used  to  address  it  soothingly,  as  if  a  power  was  present  in  it." 

Eusebius,  {Praepar.  lib.  i.  c.  10)  informs  us  that  the  old  Pheni- 
cians  used  to  call  stones  thus  prepared  for  worship,  Bethules.  It  would 
be  very  curious  to  trace  the  history  of  one  of  those  from  Phenieia  to  Spain, 
thence  to  Ireland,  thence  to  Scotland,  and  since  the  conquest  by  Ed- 
ward I.,  preserved  even  for  the  use  of  the  head  of  the  English  Protest- 
ant Church,  after  the  change  in  religion,  for  the  coronation  chair,  with 
which  I  believe  it  may  now  be  found  in  the  tower  of  London.  San- 
choniathon  traces  the  origin  of  those  stones  to  the  God  of  heaven,  and 
says  several  of  them  which  lived  and  were  animated  were  worshipped 
near  Libanus.  Apuleius  describes  some  of  the  pillars  [Florenorum 
initio]  which  received  worship.       Strabo,   (book  xvii),  describes  for  us 


104  DOCTRINE  Vol. 


remarkable  stones  in  all  parts  of  Egypt  as  well  as  in  Syria,  which  were 
objects  of  worship,  like  the  Grecian  heaps  of  iMercury.  From  the  des- 
cription of  some  of  those  in  ancient  authors,  many  of  them  appear  to 
have  been  large  aerolites,  w^hich  naturally  accounts  for  their  heavenly 
origin.  These  were  more  common  in  Egypt,  whence  the  Israelites  were 
journeying;  and  in  Syria  whither  they  were  going,  than  in  any  other 
place :  and  thus  we  can  account  for  the  special  mention  by  INIoses,  of  the 
pillars  and  remarkable  stones,  w^hich  are  very  different  things  from  our 
marble  or  other  stone  images.  Ours  are  set  up  for  purposes  similar  to 
that  of  Jacob  and  of  Josue,  and  do  not  come  within  the  prohibition. 

We  now  come  to  the  text  of  Numbers,  which  corresponds  to  this 
of  Leviticus,  and  it  is  not  the  least  curious  part  of  the  subject  to  find  the 
standing  images,  metamorphosed  by  your  Bible  into  pictures. 

Catholic  version.  (Numbers  xxxiii.  52).  "Destroy  all  the  inhabitants  of  the 
land,  beat  down  their  pillars,  and  break  in  pieces  their  statues,  and  waste  all  their 
high  places." 

Protestant  version.  ' '  Then  ye  shall  drive  out  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  land  from 
before  you,  and  destroy  all  their  pictures,  and  destroy  all  their  molten  images,  and 
quite  pluck  down  all  their  high  places." 

In  a  quotation  from  Deuteronomy  iv.,  as  it  appears  in  the  essay, 
there  is  undoubtedly  the  appearance  of  an  absolute  prohibition  of  mak- 
ing the  similitude  of  any  male  or  female;  however,  it  is  perhaps,  only 
because  your  correspondent  feared  to  occupy  too  much  valuable  space, 
or  got  tired  of  transcribing,  or  fell  asleep  at  this  particular  moment. 
Allow  me  to  continue  the  passage  which  in  each  version  is  only  inter- 
rupted by  a  comma,  whereas  he  gives  us  a  full  stop.  But  you  know, 
that  he  and  I  never  quarrel  about  points. 

Catholic  version.  "17.  The  similitude  of  any  beasts,  that  are  upon  the  earth, 
or  of  birds,  that  fly  under  heaven. 

' '  18.  Or  of  creeping  things  that  move  on  the  earth,  or  of  fishes,  that  abide  in 
the  waters  under  the  earth : 

' '  19.  Lest  perhaps  lifting  up  thy  eyes  to  heaven,  thou  see  the  sun  and  the 
moon,  and  all  the  stars  of  heaven,  and  being  deceived  by  error,  thou  adore  and  serve 
them,  which  the  Lord  thy  God  hath  created  for  the  service  of  all  the  nations  that  are 
under  heaven." 

Protestant  version.  "17.  The  likeness  of  any  beast,  that  is  on  the  earth,  the 
likeness  of  any  winged  fowl  that  flieth  in  the  air. 

• '  18.  The  likeness  of  anything  that  creepeth  on  the  ground,  the  likeness  of  any 
fish  that  is  in  the  waters  beneath  the  earth: 

"19.  And  lest  thou  lift  up  thine  eyes  unto  heaven,  and  when  thou  seest  the 
sun  and  the  moon  and  the  stars,  even  all  the  host  of  heaven,  shouldst  be  driven  to 
worship  them  and  serve  them,  which  the  Lord  thy  God  hath  divided  unto  all  the  na- 
tions under  the  whole  heaven." 

We  see  that  the  prohibition  is  not  absolute :  and  as  soon  as  the  en- 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION        105 


tire  passage  is  produced,  we  find  it  to  contain  no  more  than  an  enumera- 
tion of  the  special  objects,  which  they  were  particular aly  cautioned  not 
to  adore;  together  with  a  substantial  repetition  of  what  he  commanded 
in  Exodus  xx.  22  and  23.  You  have  seen  that  I  have  spoken  to  you  from 
heaven.  You  shall  not  make  gods  of  silver,  nor  shall  you  make  to  your- 
self gods  of  gold.  And  lest  they  should  imagine  he  had  a  bodily  shape, 
he  did  not  exhibit  himself  to  them  under  any  bodily  appearance,  but 
only  in  fire,  that  they  might  be  kept  better  to  appreciate  his  spiritual 
nature.  Hence,  it  is  the  opinion  of  several  Catholics  that  the  Jews  were 
prohibited  by  this  precept  from  making  any  statue  or  image  of  the  eter- 
nal and  invisible  God,  for  any  purpose  whatsoever.  But,  even  granting 
this  to  be  a  fair  consequence  of  the  assigned  reason,  it  will  not  follow, 
that  Christians  are  forbidden  to  make  a  likeness  of  Jesus  Christ,  who 
appeared  in  his  human  nature,  in  his  bodily  shape;  of  angels,  who  ap- 
peared as  men,  and  of  whose  images  God  himself  gave  a  model  to  Moses ; 
of  the  blessed  Virgin  who  was  a  visible  woman,  and  of  other  saints 
who  lived  and  moved  in  their  bodies;  nay  even  the  Holy  Ghost  under 
the  appearance  of  a  dove,  as  you  do  yourselves.  In  fact  my  impres- 
sion is  that  you  have  more  images  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  of  angels  in 
your  churches  in  the  United  States  that  we  have,  and  some  of  them  so 
well-fed  and  so  fat,  as  to  testify  that  they  were  made  in  times  of  royal 
favour  and  regal  munificence.  And  wo  be  to  the  man  who  would  dare 
to  go  into  either  St.  Phillip's  or  St.  Michael's  to  spit  upon  one  of  the  shin- 
ing figures,  "similitudes  of  things  in  heaven  above,"  "graven  images," 
though  you  do  not  adore  them.  Neither  do  we.  I  have  in  vain  strained 
my  eyes  through  every  nook  of  our  poor  churches  to  discover  cherub 
or  seraph  or  sacred  dove.  I  must  confess  onr  angels  are  indeed  spiritual 
and  invisible !  Is  it  then  come  to  this,  that  our  churches  have  changed 
sides?  The  churches  of  the  Romans  are  bereft  of  image-gods,  and  the 
churches  of  the  Protestants  possess  them!  !  !  This  probably  is  only  a 
piece  of  Jesuitical  policy.  No.  I  must  say,  that  I  have  Imown  the 
Catholic  Bishop  use  upon  the  occasion,  the  words  of  Shakespeare's 
Apothecary,  "my  poverty,  but  not  my  will  consents."  If  he  had  the 
means,  he  says,  that  he  would  have  the  sacred  images. 

Are  the  Catholics  of  Charleston  then  not  out  of  the  pale  of  that 
church  which  as  your  correspondent  says,  makes  it  "obligatory  on  them 
to  render  honour  and  veneration  to  images  of  the  Virgin  and  of  the 
saints?"  (Paragraph  25.)  No!  Because  there  is  no  such  obligation; 
the  practice  is  useful,  but  neither  essential  nor  obligatory.  Have  they 
not  the  images  of  Jesus  Christ  crucified?  Yes;  it  is  true  they  have; 
but  this  is  not  an  image  of  the  Virgin,  nor  of  an  angel,  nor  of  any  other 


106  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

saint.  Do  they  not  adore  the  image  of  Christ?  No!  They  do  not. 
It  but  reminds  them  of  their  Saviour:  fixes  their  attention,  and  excites 
them  to  remember  his  sacrifice  of  atonement  and  seek  salvation  through 
his  merits. 

In  the  outset  of  his  25th  paragraph  your  correspondent  asserts  what 
is  not  the  fact,  when  he  makes  adoration  and  veneration  synonymous 
terms:  when  he  changes  the  meaning  of  our  expressions,  he  misstates 
our  doctrines,  and  is  thus  dishonest,  and  in  this  mode  of  argument  he 
has  indeed  few  superiors. 

I  am  still  detained  upon  his  precious  second  essay. 

I  remain,  gentlemen. 

Your  obedient,  humble  servant, 

B.  c. 

LETTER  XII. 

For  she  was  just,  and  friend  to  virtuous  lore. 

And  pass'd  much  time  in  truly  virtuous  deed; 
And  in  those  elfins'  ears  would  oft  deplore. 

The  times  when  Truth  by  popish  rage  did  bleed, 
And  torturous  death  was  true  devotion's  meed; 

And  simple  Faith  in  iron  chains  did  mourn. 
That  could  on  wooden  image  place  her  creed; 

And  lawny  saints  in  smould'ring  flames  did  burn: 
Ah!  dearest  Lord!  forefend  thilk  days  should  e'er  return. 

Shenstone. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Aug.  17,  1829. 
To  the  Editors : 

Gentlemen: — Allow  me  to  state  what  I  believe  has  been  shown.  1. 
That  Roman  Catholics  pay  adoration  or  divine  worship  to  the  eternal 
God,  the  creator  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  and  of  all  things  visible 
and  invisible.  2.  That  they  pay  divine  honour  or  adoration  to  him 
alone.  3.  Of  course  they  do  not  pay  divine  honour  to  devils,  4.  nor  to 
imaginary  beings,  5.  nor  to  idols,  6.  nor  to  human  beings,  living  or  dead ; 
7.  nor  to  the  images  of  any  being,  nor  to  any  creature.  8.  That  they  do 
not  believe  there  resides  any  divinity  or  divine  virtue  in  any  image  what- 
ever. 9.  That  the  worship  of  dulia  or  hyperdulia,  or  honour  which 
they  give  to  angels  and  saints  is  not  divine  honour,  or  adoration,  but 
that  honour  which  one  reasonable  being  owes  to  another,  because  of  its 
excellence:  10.  and  that  the  excellence  of  the  angels  and  saints  con- 
sists in  the  perfection  of  that  nature  and  those  graces  which  they  re- 
ceived from  God  the  Creator  and  Redeemer,  and  therefore,  11.  that  the 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION        107 


honour  given  to  them  is  ultimately  referable  to  God  whose  creatures 
they  are.  Hence,  12.  the  honour  paid  to  them  is  not  derogatory  to  that 
of  the  Creator  or  Redeemer,  but  13.  it  is  rather  an  enhancing  of  the 
same.  I  have  also  shown  14,  that  when  our  writers  mention  the  adora- 
tion of  an  image,  the  expression  is  restrained  to  those  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  that  their  meaning  is  that  not  the  image,  but  the  original  whom  the 
image  represents,  is  to  receive  this  homage :  and  15,  that  when  they  use 
the  expression  of  paying  the  worship  of  dulia  or  hyperduUa  to  the  image 
of  a  saint,  or  the  representation  of  an  angel ;  they  mean  that  the  worship 
is  paid  to  the  original,  through  the  image :  yet  16,  that  those  inanimate 
representations,  or  images,  are  to  be  treated  with  a  degree  of  religious 
respect,  which  we  call  veneration,  17,  not  because  of  any  inherent  sancti- 
ty which  they  possess,  but  because  of  their  connexion  with  the  service 
of  God,  and  through  reverence  for  him. 

I  believe  I  have  also  fairly  shown  that  almost  every  one  of  those 
propositions  which  is  true  of  Roman  Catholic  worship,  would  be  false 
if  predicated  of  the  worship  of  the  heathens. 

I  believe  I  have  also  fairly  shown  that  neither  the  text  from  Exodus 
XX.  4,  nor  that  from  Leviticus  xxvi.  1,  nor  that  from  Deuteronomy  iv.  15, 
16,  forbids  what  the  Council  of  Trent  declares  to  be  lawful,  and  is  fully 
expressed  in  our  formulary. 

' '  I  most  firmly  assert,  that  the  images  of  Christ,  of  the  mother  of  God,  ever  Vir- 
gin, and  also  of  other  saints,  may  be  had  and  retained;  and  that  due  honour  and 
veneration  is  to  be  given  to  them. ' ' 

That,  and  only  that,  is  our  defined  doctrine.  The  Council  of  Trent 
was  not  called  upon  to  decide,  nor  did  it  give  a  decision,  upon  either  of 
those  two  questions.  "Is  it  permitted  to  make  an  image  of  the  invisible 
God?"  ''Is  it  permitted  to  make  an  image  of  a  mere  spiritual  being, 
an  angel  for  instance  ? ' '  Yet  still  we  can  easily  state  what  has  been  the 
general  practice,  and  the  general  sentiment  of  the  church  upon  those 
two  questions.  First,  as  to  the  practice  respecting  the  image  of  the 
invisible  God.  Such  images  are  not,  I  believe,  made.  Sometimes  paint- 
ers  attempt  a  representation  founded  upon  the  description  given  in  var- 
ious parts  of  the  sacred  writings ;  to  omit  many  others,  I  shall  merely 
refer  to  Isaias  vi.,  Ezekiel  i.,  Daniel  vii.  The  sentiment  is,  that  if  their 
intention  be  to  represent  God  as  really  possessing  that  peculiar  and 
proper  appearance,  it  would  be  criminal ;  and  to  yield  to  such  an  impres- 
sion would  be  folly;  but  if  the  painting  be  considered  as  merely  emble- 
matic or  allegorical,  it  is  not  unlawful;  though  very  unusual.  As  re- 
gards the  second  question.  Images  and  pictures  are  made,  which  give 
to  us  the  representation  of  the  appearances  which  spiritual  beings  as- 


108  DOCTRINE  Vol. 


sumed,  as  described  in  the  sacred  volume;  not  that  we  believe  these  to 
be  their  natural  and  usual  modes  of  appearance,  but  those  assumed  to 
affeot  our  senses,  and  the  sentiment  is  universal  as  to  its  being  a  lawful 
practice ;  otherwise  we  must  condemn  God  for  giving  such  a  direction  in 
Exodus  XXV.  18,  and  Moses  and  Bezeleel  for  making  them  in  Exodus 
xxxvii.  7,  as  also  Solomon  and  his  people,  I  or  III  Kings  vi.,  and  God  him- 
self, who  in  chapter  ix.  of  the  same  book,  accepts  and  approves  of  a 
temple  filled  with  such  images.  Our  Episcopalian  friends  are  mightily 
censurable  for  this  crime,  if  crime  it  be ;  and  I  have  been  filled  with  awe 
and  wonder  at  beholding  over  the  head  of  a  zealous  independent  clergy- 
man, whilst  he  was  praying  fervently  against  idolatry,  a  beautiful  graven 
image  of  the  dove,  representing  the  Spirit  of  God,  with  which  the  staid 
and  demure  congregation  of  his  hearers,  at  the  time,  believed  the  holy 
man  to  be  filled. 

This  view  of  our  doctrine  and  practice  will  enable  any  one  to  see 
what  value  is  due  to  the  assertion  of  your  correspondent,  paragraph  27, 
that  respecting  heathens  and  Roman  Catholics  "the  per  imagines  of  the 
Trentine  decree,  puts  the  matter,  as  to  the  use  of  images,  very  much  on 
the  same  footing,  in  one  ease  as  in  the  other."  But  I  cannot  so  easily 
part  with  him  even  upon  this  score,  for  I  should  like  to  see  the  gentleman 
reconcile  himself. 

Per.  "27.  The  next  is,  that  Protestants  say,  'Roman  Catholics  exculpate  them- 
selves from  the  charge  of  idolatry,  not  otherwise  than  as  the  heathens  did. '  The 
Council  of  Trent,  it  is  true,  will  not  allow  the  heathen  to  have  even  pretended  to 
worship  anything  above  their  idols.  It  may,  on  the  contrary,  be  safely  asserted,  that 
there  is  abundant  evidence  that  they  did — and  that  the  i)cr  imagines  of  the  Trentine 
decree,  puts  the  matter,  as  to  the  use  of  images,  very  much  on  the  same  footing,  in 
the  one  case  as  in  the  other.  The  testimony  of  several  of  the  fathers  might  be  given 
to  this  effect." 

Contra.  "23.  It  may  be  true  that  some  Protestants,  in  an  intemperate  zeal 
of  dissent  from  Popery,  have  considered  Eoman  Catholics  equally  as  idolatrous  as  the 
heathens  either  are  or  were.  I  believe,  however,  that  a  wide  distinction  is  generally 
considered  due  in  favour  of  Christian  worshippers  of  the  one  only  God,  however  in- 
cumbered their  worship  may  be  with  erroneous  appendages  from  those  who,  with 
no  knowledge  or  belief  of  the  one  Jehovah,  may  worship  infinitely  various  fictitious 
deities,  in  idols,  in  which  they  may  be  supposed  to  reside." 

"Voltaire,  it  is  true,  thought  the  heathens  were  no  more  idolaters  than  Roman 
Catholics.  I  would  not,  however,  take  his  authority  as  good,  against  the  industrious 
author  of  the  essay,  in  the  Eevieio.  There  is  a  difference,  and  we  should  admit  that 
it  is  important.  The  poor  Indian  either  honoured  his  idols  with  a  worship  terminat- 
ing in  them,  or,  through  them,  worshipped  the  unknown  God.  Christians  under  the 
denomination  of  Roman  Catholics,  like  other  Christians,  worship  the  one  true  God 
of  the  Scriptures." 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION        109 

When  your  correspondent  shall  have  reconciled  these  passages,  it 
will  probably  be  necessary  to  support  his  character  for  honesty,  to  ex- 
plain why,  in  urging  this  argument,  in  his  first  note  to  paragraph  25, 
he  made  two  serious  faults,  in  alluding  to  the  texts  mentioned  in  a  note 
to  the  Doway  Bible — and  makes  a  very  serious  mistake  by  printing 
"chapter  iii.  8,  7,"  for,  "chapter  xxxviii.  7,"  which  is  in  the  American 
stereotype  edition,  instead  of  xxxvii.  7,  which  is  correct,  and  usual;  I 
acquit  him  of  all  intention  of  dishonesty  in  this  portion,  and  look  upon 
it  to  be  your  printer's  error,  though  we  will  not  be  allowed  the  mistake 
of  a  comma.     He  then  proceeds. 

"The  reader,  it  is  hoped,  will  turn  to  these  passages,  and  see  if  they  authorize 
anything  like  the  Roman  Catholic  use  of  images  in  their  churches.  Venite  adorentus 
is  the  express  language  of  the  Boman  Missal :  Come  let  us  adore.  Thou  shalt 
not  adore  or  serve  them,  is  the  language  of  their  translation  of  Scripture.  Roman 
Catholics  Avill  say  they  are  not  served;  will  they  say  that  they  are  not  adored? 
The  language  of  the  passage,  as  quoted  by  themselves,  is,  adore  nor  serve ;  not 
adore  and  serve. 

The  first  fault  is  what  logicians  call  the  sophism  of  drawing  a  uni- 
versal conclusion  from  particular  premises — which  denotes  either  a  de- 
fect in  the  head,  or  one  in  the  heart  of  him  who  uses  it.  The  words 
venite  adoremus  which  he  quotes  are  used  only  on  one  day  in  the  year, 
and  confined  to  the  exhibition  of  one  image,  and  can  by  no  means  what- 
ever be  applied  to  any  other.  They  are  used  on  Good  Friday  at  uncov- 
ering the  image  of  Christ  crucified.  Now  from  his  construction  of  this 
paragraph,  the  application  is  made  to  appear  general  for  all  images, 
of  "the  Virgin  and  other  saints,"  and  his  context  appears  to  put  these 
latter  and  only  these  forward;  for  the  paragraph  begins  with  "In  this 
adoration  then,  this  due  honour  and  veneration  given  to  the  images  of 
the  Virgin  Mother  of  God  and  the  saints,  in  their  churches,  do  Catholics 
violate  the  second  of  God's  commandments."  Now  I  would  be  fully  jus- 
tified by  every  rule  of  fair  criticism  to  restrain  the  meaning  of  his  note 
to  the  extent  of  his  paragraph,  and  if  I  did,  that  extent  would  not  only 
not  reach,  but  would  exclude  the  image  of  Christ.  Upon  this  ground  he 
would  be  more  criminal  either  against  sound  reason,  or  plain  honesty, 
because  he  applies  to  images  of  one  class,  the  words  used  not  by  any 
means  for  them,  but  for  a  class  altogether  different. 

His  second  fault  was,  that  with  the  evidence  before  him  of  the  mean- 
ing and  intent  of  the  church,  he  not  only  wilfully  suppressed  it  in  this 
essay,  though  he  gives  it  after  the  lapse  of  a  month  in  the  next,  but  sug- 
gested the  very  opposite.  In  pages  228,  229,  of  the  Missal  from  which 
he  quoted,  the  following  note  is  appended  at  the  very  passage  which  he 
quotes. 


110  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

' '  The  intention  of  the  Church  in  exposing  the  cross  to  our  veneration  on  this  day, 
is,  that  we  might  the  more  effectually  raise  up  our  hearts  to  him  who  expired  thereon 
for  our  redemption.  Whenever,  therefore,  we  kneel  or  prostrate  ourselves  before  a 
crucifix,  it  is  Jesus  Christ  only  whom  we  adore,  and  it  is  in  him  alone  that  our  re- 
spects terminate. ' ' 

What  now  are  we  to  think  of  his  honesty  ?  I  have  printed  the  words 
as  they  are  printed  in  the  Missal.  Even  if  he  had  not  seen  this  note, 
he  had  in  the  garbled  extract  itself,  which  he  says  he  took  from  Father 
Paul,  of  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  the  distinction  between  the 
image  of  Christ  and  the  images  of  the  saints,  in  the  separate  verb  applied 
to  each:  to  Christ,  adoreynus;  to  the  saints,  veneremur;  and  he  had  also 
the  very  preposition  which  condemned  him  of  dishonesty  all  through, 
ut  per  imagines  Christum  adoremus,  "that  through  the  images  we  might 
adore  Christ,"  (par.  23),  and  therefore  it  was,  that  he  laboured  in  par- 
agraph 27,  to  prove  that  the  pagans  did  not  adore  idols,  but  God  through 
the  idols,  that  he  might  put  them  on  very  much  the  same  footing  with  us. 

Again,  he  charges  us  with  suppressing  "thou  shalt  not  adore  nor 
serve, ' '  and  yet  he  quotes  the  very  words  from  our  own  Bible ! !  This 
is  one  way  of  suppressing! 

After  having  got  through  this  task,  I  shall  propose  to  him  another 
effort  at  reconciling  himself  to  himself.  In  paragraph  27.  The  heathens 
are  very  much  upon  the  same  footing  with  the  Roman  Catholics,  because 
he  says,  the  assertion  of  the  Council  of  Trent  is  not  true,  that  they 
"worshipped  anything  above  their  idols."  There  is,  he  says,  abundant 
evidence  on  the  contrary  that  they  did, — they  adored  something  above 
the  images  through  the  images, — they  worshipped  God  through  the 
images.  If  in  this  they  are  upon  very  much  the  same  footing  with 
Roman  Catholics,  these  latter  must  therefore  worship  God  through  the 
images,  and  thus  God  is  the  object  of  the  Catholic  adoration.  Yet,  in 
paragraph  24,  he  labours  to  show  that  Catholics  do  adore  images,  and 
pictures,  and  in  paragraph  25,  he  asserts  that  they  violate  the  second 
of  God's  commandments  in  this  adoration  given  to  the  images:  and  in 
the  note,  he  triumphantly  asks  will  Roman  Catholics  say  that  the  images 
are  not  adored  in  their  churches? 

After  he  has  reconciled  his  assertion  that  it  is  God  we  adore  through 
the  image,  with  his  assertion  that  it  is  the  image  we  adore — he  will  still 
have  to  reconcile  two  others,  viz. :  that  in  paragraph  23,  where  he  says 
that  a  distinction  is  due  in  our  favour  over  the  heathen,  with  that  in  25, 
where  he  asserts  that  we  worship  the  image;  from  which  gross  idolatry 
he  vindicates  the  heathen  in  paragraph  27,  thereby  preferring  the  hea- 
then worship  as  more  pure  than  ours. 

The  only  topic  of  his  second  essay  which  I  have  not  now  disposed 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION        111 

of,  is  that  which  he  takes  up  in  the  second  note  to  paragraph  25,  and 
which  he  more  specially  treats  of  in  paragraph  26.  In  which,  his  object 
is  to  show  that  we  are  not  misrepresented  when  it  is  alleged  "that  sen- 
sible that  our  practice  is  contrary  to  the  second  commandment;  we  have 
in  several  of  our  Catechisms  omitted  the  second,  and  to  keep  up  the 
number,  split  the  tenth  into  two. ' '  The  first  fault  of  your  correspondent 
is,  that  he  begs  the  question,  by  assuming  that  what  he  calls  the  second 
commandment  is  not  a  part  of  the  first. 

I  shall  not  prolong  a  contest  which  has  far  exceeded  in  length  my 
original  plan,  by  taking  up  this  question  at  large.  I  shall  merely  remark 
in  the  first  place,  that  neither  God  nor  Moses  divided  the  law,  containing 
the  precepts,  in  the  one  way  or  in  the  other,  and  that  if  we  give  the 
entire  of  the  law  itself,  as  Bishop  Stillingfleet  attests,  or  as  your  corre- 
spondent attests — I  care  not  which,  (par.  26,)  in  our  Vulgate  and  Doway 
Bibles,  which  are  our  standards  of  Latin  and  English,  it  cannot  be  fairly 
said  that  we  omit  that  which  we  actually  print.  "But  we  omit  it  in  our 
Catechisms."  Our  object  could  not  be  to  mislead,  for  if  it  was,  we 
would  act  very  absurdly  by  printing  it  in  our  Bible.  But  does  your 
correspondent  mean  to  assert  by  the  words,  "and  as  it  is  printed  in  the 
Septuagint,  the  Vulgate,  and  the  DoM-ay  Bible,  and  so  forth,"  that  these 
Bibles  do  divide  the  law  into  ten  heads,  and  place  this  the  second?  For 
if  he  does,  he  asserts  what  is  not  the  fact.  The  Bible  has  no  such  divi- 
sion, no  Bible  ever  exhibited  the  division.  In  the  next  place ;  the  division 
of  this  law  into  ten  heads  was  a  human  institution  of  convenience,  and 
it  would  be  just  as  fair  for  me  to  state  that  they  are  only  three  command- 
ments, or  only  two  commandments  as  that  they  are  ten.  In  the  first 
case,  I  w^ould  divide  the  law  into  the  precepts  regarding  the  worship 
of  God,  the  external  conduct  of  man  to  his  neighbour,  and  the  regulation 
of  his  own  desires.  In  the  second  case,  I  would  divide  it  as  our  Saviour 
did,  into  the  duties  towards  God,  and  those  towards  man,  and  yet  having 
only  two  or  three  commandments,  I  would  still  omit  no  part  of  the  law. 
In  the  third  place.  The  division  which  we  adopt,  was  that  which  was 
universally  adopted  and  followed  by  the  Christian  Church,  at  and  before 
the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century.  Your  mode  of  dividing  has  been 
subsequently  taken  by  the  gentlemen  whom  you  call  Reformers,  for  the 
purpose  of  having  the  appearance  of  a  plea  to  convict  us  of  violating 
a  commandment,  by  giving  to  a  part  of  the  first,  a  meaning  which  I  have 
showTi  it  cannot  sustain.  Fourthly,  our  Catechisms  do  not  profess  to 
give  the  words,  but  the  substance  of  the  law,  and  therefore,  as  we  con- 
ceive what  you  call  the  first  and  second  to  be  only  one  ordinance,  com- 
manding the  worship  of  God,  which  the  pagans  neglected,  and  forbidding 


112  DOCTRINE  VoL 

idolatry  which  they  practised,  we  do  not  make  two  separate  recitals  of 
what  we  look  upon  to  be  only  one  precept ;  and  yet  we  are  guilty  of  no 
omission,  because  we  give  all  the  words  of  the  law  in  the  Bible  where 
we  profess  to  give  them.  Fifthly,  we  find  a  prohibition  of  impure  acts, 
followed  by  a  prohibition  of  theft,  and  as  they  are  sins  of  various  kinds, 
and  separately  prohibited,  so  we  follow  the  same  order  in  the  prohibition 
of  desire  to  act  impurely,  and  desire  to  act  dishonestly,  and  we  look  upon 
the  desires  of  impurity  and  injustice,  to  be  as  distinct  in  their  moral 
nature,  as  are  the  external  acts.  Sixthly.  Whether  we  be  right  or  wrong 
in  this  mode  of  division,  we  are  not  the  originators  of  the  division  or 
omission.  I  need  only  to  take  your  own  evidence  or  that  of  your  cor- 
respondent to  acquit  us;  for  he  tells  us,  (note  2,  to  par.  25),  that  others 
had  done  so  before  us,  both  in  the  Jewish  and  early  Christian  churches. 
"Why  then  make  us  the  criminals  if  the  crime  was  committed  before  we 
were  born?  We  get  two  reasons  from  him,  and  most  notable  ones  they 
are.     First  reason,  "Their  authority  was  not  paramount." 

The  question  is  not  concerning  authority,  but  concerning  fact.  The 
question  of  fact  is,  "whether  Eoman  Catholics  omitted  the  second  com- 
mandment, and  split  the  tenth  into  two  for  the  purpose  of  not  having 
it  exist  as  a  reproof  of  their  idolatrous  practice."  Mark  the  notable 
answer.  Yes  they  did — because,  though  the  Jews  did  it  innocently  be- 
fore Christianity  existed,  yet  the  Roman  Catholics,  who  received  those 
precepts  from  the  Jews  as  a  divine  law,  were  criminal,  because  the  au- 
thority of  the  Jews  was  not  paramount ! ! !  And  the  early  Christians 
innocently  did  it,  but  yet  the  Roman  Catholics  are  criminal  in  doing 
so,  and  it  was  the  Roman  Catholics  who  alone  were  guilty  of  the  omis- 
sion, because  the  authority  of  the  early  Christians  was  not  paramount!!! 
Who  will  now  dare  to  say  that  your  correspondent  is  not  pellucid? — I 
must  match  paramount  if  I  can.  Really,  a  person  who  does  not  after 
this,  clearly  see,  that  the  Catholics  were  the  persons  who  first  omitted 
the  second  commandment,  must  be  unable  to  see  through  a  block  of 
granite ! 

Finding,  however,  that  the  proof  will  by  no  means  sustain,  what  is 
the  only  conclusion  that  should  be  established  for  his  purpose,  viz. — 
That  this  omission  was  made  first  by  Roman  Catholics,  he  comes  upon 
the  principle  of  cy  pres,  as  near  the  mark  as  he  can,  by  sustaining  his 
feebleness  upon  an  unfounded  and  uncharitable  allegation,  "nor  was 
their  purpose  sinister."  Thus  what  the  Jews  and  early  Christians  did 
without  a  sinister  purpose  according  to  the  paragraph,  is  proof  that  the 
Roman  Catholics,  M'ho  afterwards  did  it,  were  the  only  persons  guilty  of 
omission ! ! !     Call  you  this  logic  ?     Really,  this  puts  to  shame  the  wolf, 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION        113 

who,  when  he  was  obliged  to  acquit  the  lamb  because  of  non-age,  alleged 
that  his  father  committed  the  crime,  for  which  he  should  suffer ;  you  will 
not  admit  that  Jews  or  Christians  are  to  save  us,  though  both  have  inno- 
cently done  what  you  call  our  crime,  but  you  find  that  we  are  too  young 
to  be  Jews,  though  we  are  in  truth  those  same  ' '  early  Christians, ' '  whom 
you  acquit  of  any  sinister  intention,  though  you  condemn  us  for  our 
sinister  intention.  Pray,  will  you  ask  your  correspondent  to  reconcile 
his  acquittal  of  the  Jews  and  of  the  early  Christians,  who  divided  the 
law  as  we  do,  with  his  condemnation  of  us,  and  with  his  statement  in 
paragraph  26? 

' '  Now  it  may  be  offensive  to  Eoman  Catholics,  that  Protestants  should  say  they 
make  this  omission,  because  they  are  sensible  that  it  is  called  for  in  aid  of  the  author- 
ity of  their  church,  in  ordering  such  adorations  as  they  are  required  to  pay  to  images; 
and  Protestants  may  possibly  err  in  assigning  this  motive  for  the  omission;  but  as 
they  can  see  no  other,  and  hold  the  fact  of  the  omission  to  be  indisputable,  they  surely 
are  not  justly  censurable,  either  for  the  assertion  of  the  fact,  or  their  manner,  so 
reasonable,  of  accounting  for  it." 

Can  he  not  see  another  reason,  in  our  following  the  Jews  and  the 
early  Christians? 

I  now  ask  any  candid  person,  who  has  had  the  patience  to  read  my 
explanations,  whether  I  was  justly  censurable  for  stating  in  my  letter 
to  Bishop  Bowen,  that  it  was  a  misrepresentation  of  our  doctrine  and 
practice  to  assert : 

"1.  That  Roman  Catholics  pray  to  angels  and  saints  to  save  them 
by  their  merits,  making  those  angels  and  saints  mediators  with  Christ, 
or  in  his  stead. 

"2.     That  Roman  Catholics  dishonour  Christ,  our  only  mediator. 

"3.  That  Roman  Catholics  give  to  creatures  the  worship  due  to 
God  alone,  and  are  thus  guilty  of  direct  idolatry. 

"4.  That  Roman  Catholics  worship  the  blessed  Virgin  mother  of 
our  Lord,  in  such  a  way  as  to  commit  downright  idolatry. 

"5.  That  Roman  Catholics  worship  the  images  or  pictures  of  the 
Virgin  Mary,  and  of  other  saints. 

"6.  That  Roman  Catholics  violate  the  second  of  God's  command- 
ments without  scruple. 

"7.  That  notwithstanding  such  violation  without  scruple,  Roman 
Catholics  seem  to  be  sensible  that  their  practice  is  contrary  to  the  said 
second  commandment. 

''8.  That  therefore  in  several  of  their  catechisms,  the  Roman  Cath- 
olics leave  out  the  second  commandment,  and  to  make  up  the  number, 
they  split  the  tenth  into  two. 

"9.     That  Roman  Catholics,  in  excusing  themselves  from  idolatry 


114  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

in  their  image  worship,  say  no  more  for  their  exculpation  than  the  hea- 
thens said  for  themselves,  and  therefore, 

*'10.  That  Roman  Catholics  are  equally  idolatrous  as  the  heathens 
are  or  were." 

I  now  come  to  this  third  essay,  in  your  number  for  March,  where 
he  attempts  to  show  that  our  adoration  and  praying  to  the  cross  is  the 
most  gross  and  intolerable  corruption.  In  paragraph  29,  he  states  this 
and  another  question.  In  paragraph  30,  he  undertakes  to  show  that  it 
is  a  fact  that  we  adore  the  cross,  and  that  we  pray  to  the  cross.  To 
prove  that  we  adore  it,  he  quotes  Almain.  The  passage  in  this  writer  is 
exactly  such  as  that  in  St.  Thomas  of  Aquin,  and  the  answer  I  make  is 
the  same,  which  is  found  at  the  commencement  of  my  seventh  letter,  to 
which  I  refer  you.  If  Bishop  Taylor  had  no  better  claim  to  theological 
knowledge  than  this  would  create,  he  would  indeed  hold  an  unenviable 
place.  His  second  proof  is  drawn  from  the  Pontifical,  respecting  the 
legate's  cross.  To  this  I  can  only  answer,  that  when  he  vouchsafes  to 
tell  me  in  what  part  of  the  Pontifical  the  passage  is  found,  I  probably 
shall  be  able  to  tell  him  its  meaning. — The  Pontifical  now  lies  before  me ; 
I  have  spent  some  hours  in  looking  through  it,  I  have  read  over  care- 
fully every  word  in  any  part  which  the  index  showed  likely  to  point  out 
a  legate  or  his  cross,  and  all  in  vain.  I  can  find  no  such  passage  as  that 
which  is  quoted.  Is  this  a  forgery  of  his  own,  or  who  is  its  author? 
The  third  passage  is  from  St.  Thomas  of  Aquin.  Did  your  correspon- 
dent forget  what  he  wrote  in  his  second  essay,  paragraph  23,  of  St. 
Thomas  Aquinas,  that  he  asserted  "that  to  worship  the  image  with  any 
other  act  than  that  by  which  the  original  was  v\'orsliipped,  would  be  to 
worship  it  on  its  own  account,  which  is  idolatry?"  According  to  him, 
then,  Thomas  Aquinas  tells  us  that  it  would  be  idolatry  to  worship  it  on 
its  own  account,  and  also  tells  us  that  Vv-e  must  worship  it  on  its  o\\ti 
account,  because  we  place  our  salvation  in  it.  This,  indeed,  is  one  way 
of  making  Thomas  Aquinas  appear  ridiculous.  But  is  this  mode  honest  ? 
Let  us  see.  The  quotation  is  substantially  correct,  so  far  as  it  goes,  but 
it  is  grossly  incorrect  as  a  representation  of  the  doctrine  of  St.  Thomas, 
because  it  suppressed  what  is  required  to  give  a  correct  view  of  his  mean- 
ing. The  passage  is  found  in  his  Summa  Theol.,  paragraph  3,  qu£est 
XXV.,  article  ix.     To  explain  his  proposition,  he  writes  as  follows : 

"  Bespondeo  dicendum,  ut  supra  dictum  est,  'honor  seu  reverentia  non  debetur  nisi 
rationali  naturae;  unde  creaturae  insensibili  non  debetur  honor  vel  reverentia  nisi 
ratione  rationalis  naturae.  Et  hoc  dupUciter.  Uno  modo,  in  quantum  repraesentat 
rationalem  naturam;  alio  modo  in  quantum  ei  quocumque  modo  conjungitur." 

"1  answer,  it  must  be  stated,  as  vras  previously  said,  honour  or  reverence  is  not 
due  but  to  a  reasonable  being,  wherefore  honour  or  reverence  is  not  due  to  an  insen- 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION        115 

sible  being,  except  on  account  of  one  that  is  reasonable.  And  that  might  be  in  two 
ways.  In  one  way,  inasmuch  as  it  represents  a  rational  being:  in  another  way,  inas- 
much as  it  is  in  some  manner  joined  with  it." 

Thus,  it  is  clear  that  any  respect  paid  to  the  cross  of  Christ,  is 
upon  his  principle,  as  exhibited  throughout  this  article,  and  as  explained 
before  in  my  Letter  VII,  because  of  its  representing  Jesus  Christ,  to  whom 
it  is  so  joined  in  our  memory,  that  at  once,  upon  seeing  it,  the  mind  is 
carried  to  the  recollection  of  his  sufferings,  and  to  the  disposition  for 
adoring  him,  who  by  his  suffering  upon  the  cross  gave  us  the  hope  of 
our  salvation.  Hence,  the  address  to  the  cross  is,  as  Bellarmine  shows 
in  the  quotation  in  letter  vii.,  made  to  Jesus  Christ  crucified,  and  not  to 
the  insensible*  piece  of  wood,  to  which  our  children  are  taught  in  the 
Catechism,  as  quoted  in  my  former  letter,  we  may  by  no  means  pray, 
any  more  than  to  other  images  or  relics,  for  they  have  neither  life  nor 
sense,  nor  power  to  hear  or  help  us.  Gentlemen,  I  might,  perhaps,  be 
under  a  mistake ;  but  the  impression  on  my  mind  is,  whether  correct  or 
not,  that  no  man  who  has  the  least  pretensions  to  education  or  common 
sense,  ever  seriously  believed  that  we  prayed  to  the  crucifix;  and  hence, 
the  moment  I  find  the  assertion  made  by  any  person,  who  has  common  in- 
tellect, and  been  taught  to  read,  I  lose  all  respect  for  him  as  a  candid  man 
or  a  man  of  religious  honesty.  If  I  can  avoid  speaking  upon  religious 
subjects  with  such  a  man,  I  shall  never  exchange  a  word  with  him  on 
a  religious  topic. 

His  next  argument,  if  argument  I  may  so  call  it,  is  from  the  Missal, 
where  the  office  of  Good  Friday  "exhibits  the  adoration  of  the  cross." 
He  partially  inserts  the  note  from  the  translation  of  the  Missal,  as  I 
have  previously  given  it,  which  shows  that  it  is  Jesus  Christ  whom  we 
adore,  and  not  the  cross  itself.  And  yet  he  would  persuade  his  readers 
that  we  do  what  we  declare  we  do  not.  He  again  has  recourse  to  the 
unworthy  subterfuge  of  a  groundless  distinction  between  those  who  can 
and  those  who  cannot  distinguish  the  image  from  Jesus  Christ.  And 
in  quoting  the  note  he  has  again  garbled  by  omitting  the  word  only, 
which  would  defeat  his  entire  object  if  inserted.  The  note  says,  "When- 
ever we  kneel  or  prostrate  ourselves  before  a  crucifix,  it  is  Jesus  Christ 
only  whom  we  adore."  The  omission  of  this  word  did  not  satisfy  him, 
but  after  the  garbled  insertion,  he  adds :  ' '  This  note  seems  to  have  been 
suggested  by  the  obvious  apprehension  that  the  people  thus  called  on  to 
venerate,  would  naturally  understand  the  call  to  mean  come,  let  lis  wor- 
ship. ' '  I  beg  leave  to  inform  him  that  the  note  was  altogether  unneces- 
sary for  Catholics;  and  so  far  as  my  own  individual  opinion  might  be 
expressed,  I  would  prefer  the  translation  be  neither  worship  nor  vene- 


116  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

rate,  which  are  both  generic,  but  adore,  which  is  special  and  appropriate. 
I  cannot  say  why  the  note  was  introduced,  but  I  should  naturally  believe 
that  it  was  to  guard  others  than  Catholics  from  being  misled  by  writers 
as  dishonest  as  your  correspondent.  For  Catholics  it  is  totally  unneces- 
sary. 

This  is  the  sum  of  his  semblance  of  argument ;  and  I  apprehend  he 
has  failed  to  prove  that  Roman  Catholics  either  adore  or  pray  to  the 
cross,  though  excited  by  the  image  and  the  ceremony,  they  adore  and 
pray  to  Jesus  Christ  crucified,  in  whom  alone  they  have  hope  of  salva- 
tion. 

I  shall  here  add  one  remark  upon  his  affected  pain  and  regret.  I 
shall  merely  for  a  moment  use  his  own  principle  against  himself,  and 
appeal  even  to  him,  what  would  be  his  estimation  of  one  who  would 
thus  assail  his  church? 

"It  is  most  painful  to  every  good  man  to  behold  a  large  and  respec- 
table body  of  our  fellow  Protestants  sunk  into  idolatry.  It  is  true,  they 
say  themselves,  that  their  intention  is  not  idolatrous ;  and  being,  as  they 
are,  worshippers  of  the  only  Jehovah  of  the  Scriptures,  we  must  draw 
a  favourable  distinction  between  them  and  the  heathen,  who,  though 
he  bows  down  or  kneels  down,  as  they  do,  to  mere  inanimate  creatures, 
still  is  a  worshipper  of  the  unknow^n  God,  if  not  of  fictitious  deities. 
But,  whatever  may  be  the  declaration  of  our  brethren  of  the  Episco- 
palian Church,  w-e  cannot  leave  the  word  of  God,  w^hich  is  our  common 
standard,  acknowledged  by  themselves  as  paramount.  They  even  ac- 
knowledge that  God  alone  is  to  be  worshipped;  but  this  only  aggra- 
vates their  infatuation,  and  renders  them  more  the  objects  of  our  com- 
passion. Prayer  and  kneeling  are  the  evidences  of  worship,  and  yet 
they  kneel  before  creatures,  and  this  in  the  most  solemn  act  of  their 
religious  worship,  and  most  serious  time  of  prayer.  It  is  true,  they 
tell  us,  that,  although  they  kneel  to  the  inanimate  element,  yet  it  is  not 
the  element,  but  God  that  they  worship;  but  do  they  not  bow  down? 
Do  they  not  kneel?  And  they  kneel  to  worship,  and  before  what  they 
call  holy,  as  if  it  were  untrue  that  God  alone  is  holy ;  and  then  is  not  it 
making  gods  for  themselves?  Strange  gods,  before  which  they  kneel 
or  bow  down,  when  the  commandment  is,  you  shall  not  bow  down ! ! 
They  even  go  farther,  for  they  kneel  and  bow  down,  and  both,  before  a 
creature  to  which  they  give  the  appellation  holy,  though  God  alone  is 
holy.  What  is  this  but  to  worship  that  creature  as  God  ?  It  is  painful 
to  see  the  proof  in  their  own  books,  and  in  their  own  practice — in  their 
communion  service,  where  they  meet  to  eat  bread  and  drink  wine,  they 
kneel,  whereas  Christ  and  his  disciples  remained  seated  at  table ;  the 


two        DEFENCE    OF   PRECEDING    SECTION        117 


Scripture  does  not  inform  us  that  they  worshipped,  or  kneeled  or  bowed 
down;  nay,  even  to  guard  against  the  supposition  of  such  worship,  it 
is  specially  recorded  that  it  was  whilst  they  were  at  table.  Yet,  read 
the  rubrics  of  the  Episcopal  Prayer-book,  and  be  moved  with  compas- 
sion for  this  degeneracy  of  Protestants;  of  brethren  of  our  Reforma- 
tion ! ! ! 

"  'Then  shall  the  priest  first  receive  the  communion  in  both  kinds  himself,  and 
proceed  to  deliver  the  same  to  the  bishops,  priests  and  deacons,  in  like  manner  (if 
any  be  present,)  and  after  that  to  the  people  in  order,  into  their  hands,  all  devoutly- 
kneeling;  and  when  he  delivereth  the  Bread,  he  shall  say,'  and  so  forth. 

"It  is  true,  they  say,  that  they  only  worship  God,  but  do  they  not 
kneel  down  devoutly  to  that  bread?  God  forbid  that  we  should  assert, 
that  there  are  not  amongst  them  some  whose  abstraction  of  enlightened 
piety  does  lead  to  spiritual  worship,  but  for  the  multitude!  The  Lord 
says,  "You  shall  not  bow  down,"  the  Church  says,  "You  shall  devoutly 
kneel  down."  We  must,  painful  as  it  is,  say  that  the  idolatry  is  pal- 
pable. 

When  your  correspondent  can  feel  what  he  ought  to  think  of  one 
who  would  address  your  church  in  such  language,  he  can  estimate  the 
feelings  entertained  regarding  himself  by,  gentlemen, 

Your  obedient,  humble  servant,  b.  c. 

LETTER  XIIL 

In  doubtful  points  betwixt  her  diff'ring  friends, 
Where  one  for  substance,  one  for  sign  contends. 
Their  contradicting  terms  she  strives  to  join; 
Sign  shall  be  substance,  substance  shall  be  sign. 
A  real  presence  all  her  sons  allow, 
And  yet   'tis  flat  idolatry  to  bow. 
Because  the  godhead 's  there  they  know  not  how. 
Her  novices  are  taught  that  bread  and  wine 
Are  but  the  visible  and  outward  sign, 
Receiv'd  by  those  who  in  communion  join. 
But  the  inward  grace  or  the  thing  signified 
His  blood  and  body,  who  to  save  us  died; 
The  faithful  this  thing  signified  receive: 
What  is   't  those  faithful  then  partake  or  leave? 
For  what  is  signified  and  understood. 
Is,  by  her  own  confession,  flesh  and  blood. 
Then,  by  the  same  acknowledgement,  we  know 
They  take  the  sign,  and  take  the  substance  too. 
The  literal  sense  is  hard  to  flesh  and  blood, 
But  nonsense  never  can  be  understood. 

Dryden's  Hind  and  Panther. 


118  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Aug.  24,  1829. 
To  the  Editors: 

Gentlemen: — ^Your  correspondent  undertakes,  in  the  paragraphs  33, 
34  and  35  of  his  third  essay  for  April,  to  show  that  we  commit  idolatry 
by  adoring  the  Eucharist.  Though  such  be  his  avowed  object,  he  wan- 
ders most  egregiously  from  the  subject  into  one  totally  distinct,  but  into 
which  I  shall  scarcely  follow  him.  He  attacks  the  doctrine  of  transub- 
stantiation,  to  show,  that  in  the  Eucharist  there  is  only  bread  and  wine ; 
and  that,  therefore,  we  adore  nothing  but  those  created  substances,  and, 
of  course,  are  idolaters.  Even  if  the  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church 
Avere  proved  to  be  a  mistake,  his  proposition  would  not  necessarily  fol- 
low as  the  result,  for  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  consubstantiation,  which 
implies  the  real  presence  of  Christ  together  with  the  bread  and  wine, 
might  yet  be  true,  even  if  ours  were  false ;  and  yet,  in  that  case,  we 
would  worship  Christ,  who  would  be  really  present.  He  will  not  say 
that  such  worship  would  be  idolatry,  because  Christ,  and  not  the  bread 
and  wine,  would  be  the  object  of  our  adoration.  A  very  large  body  of 
Lutheran  Protestants  still  adore  Christ  present  in  the  Eucharist.  Will 
the  gentleman  call  his  fellow  Protestants  idolaters? 

I  shall  now  suppose  the  Roman  Catholics,  the  whole  of  the  Eastern 
separatists,  and  the  Lutherans,  to  be  in  error;  and  that  the  true  doc- 
trine, as  to  the  nature  of  the  Eucharist,  is  held  only  by  the  followers 
of  Zuinglius,  or  the  sacramentarians,  principally  consisting  of  the  Cal- 
vinists,  Baptists,  Church  of  England,  and  their  several  branches  and 
separations — in  all  probably  scarcely  approaching,  at  most,  to  forty 
millions.  They  form  not  one-sixth  of  the  Christian  community;  I  be- 
lieve, from  close  calculation  and  enumeration,  that  they  are,  more  prop- 
erly speaking,  less  than  one-seventh:  let  us  take  them  at  one-sixth. 
Let  us  suppose  the  other  five-sixths,  who  believe  the  doctrine  of  the  real 
presence,  to  be  all  in  perfect  error  as  to  the  nature  of  the  Eucharist ; 
which  would  indeed  be  a  very  strange  supposition !  I  ask  a  simple 
question  of  any  one  of  those  persons,  "Pray,  to  whom,  or  to  what,  do 
you  direct  j'our  adoration  in  presence  of  the  sacrament?"  "Would  he 
not  directly  say?  "To  Jesus  Christ."  I  ask  him,  "Do  you  intend 
to  worship  bread?"  He  will  certainly  answer,  "No."  I  state  to  him 
your  opinion,  that  he  is  under  a  mistake,  and  that,  indeed,  Jesus  Christ 
is  not  there ;  that  the  sacrament  is  nothing  but  bread ;  and  then  ask 
him,  "Will  you  adore  the  bread?"  He  will  reply,  that  the  mistake  is 
on  your  part,  for  that  you  ought  to  know  that  it  is  in  the  power  of  God 
to  place  one  substance  under  the  appearance  of  another,  or,  if  he  be  a 
Lutheran,  to  conceal  one  substance  in  another;  that  God's  word  is  to 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION        119 


us  the  most  ample  evidence ;  that  when  he  says  anything  has  been  done 
by  him,  it  is  certainly  done;  that  he  declared  the  body  and  blood,  and 
so  forth,  of  Christ  would  be  really  present  in  the  sacrament  at  the  con- 
secration of  the  Eucharist;  that  this  has  been  so  consecrated;  that,  of 
course,  this  is  the  case  to  which  his  testimony  applies;  and  that  it  is 
very  strange  on  your  part  to  deny  his  power  to  assume  this  appearance, 
or  to  deny  that,  in  fact,  he  does  assume  it  in  the  case  in  which  he  declared 
it  should  be  done.  Thus,  he  states  that  he  has  satisfactory  evidence  of 
the  presence  of  Christ ;  and  that  his  adoration  is  intended  for  the  Sav- 
iour, and  only  for  him,  and  not  for  the  bread.  Now,  gentlemen,  sup- 
pose what  he  calls  reasoning  to  be  only  fanaticism ;  suppose  that  Christ 
had  said,  "This  is  bread,  which  shall  signify  that  I  died  for  you,  but 
it  is  not  my  body,"  instead  of  saying,  "This  is  my  body,  which  is  given 
for  you ; "  it  is  clear  that,  on  the  part  of  this  adorer,  there  was  no  in- 
tention of  idolatry,  though  there  would  have  been  a  mistake  as  to  the  fact 
of  the  presence  of  him  whom  he  intended  to  adore.  Would  that  citizen 
be  a  traitor,  who,  honestly  mistaking  a  spy  of  the  enemy  for  the  com- 
manding officer  of  the  army  of  his  state,  would  sedulously,  and  respect- 
fully, and  affectionately  entertain,  protect  and  escort  that  spy,  affording 
him  all  the  information  in  his  power?  Clearly  it  was  patriotism,  not 
treason,  that  led  him  to  act.  Adoration  is  a  mental  act ;  and  our  inten- 
tion is  to  adore  Christ  the  eternal  God,  and  not  bread.  This  would 
suffice  to  rescue  us  from  the  imputation  so  thoughtlessly  repeated.  But 
as  your  correspondent  has  seen  proper  to  accompany  the  imputation 
with  a  variety  of  other  remarks,  it  might  not  be  amiss  to  glance  at  some 
of  them.  He  says,  that  Roman  Catholics  do  not  deny  that  they  worship 
the  consecrated  elements,  paragraph  33.  He  makes  the  same  assertion 
in  paragraph  35,  in  which  he  states  that,  ' '  according  to  a  decree  passed 
on  this  subject  in  the  13th  session  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  latria  or 
divine  worship  is  not  denied  to  be  rendered  to  them,"  i.  e.  the  elements. 
It  is  plain,  that,  by  the  word  elements,  he  and  his  readers  understand 
bread  and  wine,  consecrated  it  is  true,  but  still  naturally  and  substantially 
only  bread  and  wine.  The  decree  to  which  he  refers  is  the  following, 
which  declares  it  to  be  a  departing  from  the  communion  of  the  church ; 

(Sess.  xiii.  Can.  vi)  : 

"Si  quis  dixerit,  in  sancto  Eucharistiae  Sacramento  Christum  unigenitum  Dei 
filium  non  esse  cultu  latriae,  etiam  externa  adorandum;  .  .  .  .  et  ejus  adoratores 
esse  idololatros." 

"If  any  one  shall  say,  that  Christ  the  only  begotten  son  of  God,  is  not  to  be 
adored,  in  the  holy  sacrament  of  the  Eucharist,  even  with  the  external  worship  of 
latria  ....  and  that  His  adorers  are  idolaters." 

I  had  little  trouble  in  examining  whether  it  was  his  idol  Father 


120  DOCTRINE  Vol. 


Paul  that  led  your  curious  correspondent  into  this  mishap.  I  find  in 
two  places  that  it  was  not.  Roman  Catholics  then  do  deny  that  they 
worship  the  elements.  But  how  happy  a  facility  has  your  correspondent 
here  acquired  of  calling  things  by  their  right  names?  We  have  latria, 
in  this  place  even  under  his  own  hand,  ' '  divine  worship. 

But  he  says,  that  "if  Protestants  find  it  impossible  to  be  convinced 
that  the  sacramental  bread  and  wine  even  after  consecration,  are  any- 
thing else  but  bread  and  wine,  Roman  Catholics  must  admit  that  they  do 
not  wilfully  misrepresent  them  in  saying  that  they  worship  bread  and 
wine  in  the  Eucharist,"   (par.  33.)     The  same  semblance  of  argument 
is  used  in  paragraph  35,  and  because  he,  a  Protestant,  says  they  are  bread 
and  wine,  this  Catholic  who  adores  Christ  must  be  an  idolater!  !  !     In 
the  first  place  I  must  remark,  the  question  was  not  whether  our  doc- 
trine was  wilfully  misrepresented,  but  whether  it  was  misrepresented. 
The  dragging  in  therefore  the  word  wilfully  is  changing  the  question 
and  giving  up  the  field.     Now  for  his  argument,  I  leave  its  ansAver  to 
himself;  and  when  he  shall  refute  the  Unitarian,  I  will  answer  him. 
By  the  by,  it  is  to  me  one  of  the  most  extraordinary  spectacles  that  I 
have  ever  witnessed,  to  see  the  self-important  orthodoxy  of  one  class 
of  Protestants  condemning  another  class  for  anti-Christian  conduct,  in 
merely  helping  to  carry  their  common  principle  of  Scripture  interpre- 
tation, to  its  just  and  natural  extent.     It  is  a  melancholy  amusement  to 
behold  your  Church,  for  instance,  turn  upon  the  Roman  Catholics  and 
accuse  them  of  tyranny  and  dictation,  because  they  say,  "These  texts 
respecting  the  Eucharist,  have  always  been  thus  understood,  and  it  is 
an  unwarrantable  act  on  your  part,  now  to  force  upon  them  a  meaning 
different  from  the  faith  of  all  antiquity;"  then  declare  that  she  will 
use  the  liberty  of  her  own  judgment,  accountable  only  to  God,  for  its 
use.     And  she  next  turns  to  the  Unitarian,  and  declares  that  he  acts 
unwarrantably,  and  deserts  orthodoxy,  because  he  uses  the  very  same 
"right"  as  she  calls  it,  respecting  texts  concerning  the  nature  of  Jesus 
Christ!  !  ! — But  to  our  point.     Does  the   Unitarian  misrepresent  you 
when  he  says  that  you  pay  an  idolatrous  worship  to  the  creature  Jesus 
Christ  ?     And  are  you  to  be  fairly  chargable  with  idolatry  in  your  ador- 
ation of  Christ  the  only  begotten  son  of  God,  as  long  as  the  Unitarian 
will  continue  to  declare  that  he  finds  it  impossible  to  be  convinced  of  his 
eternal  divinity  ? — Is  his  error  to  make  you  a  criminal  ?     Are  you  to  be 
made  a  butt  of  obloquy  and  reproach,  because  the  Unitarian  is  obstinate  ? 
Admirable  theology! 

In  his  paragraph  33,  the  philosophical  writer  gravely  informs  us 
that  the  "matter  is  determined  by  the  sense  of  seeing.     They  see  the 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION        121 


bread  and  wine,  and  they  see  the  adoration  paid  to  them." — As  he  read 
my  letters  to  Bishop  Bowen,  I  must  be  satisfied  to  repeat  that  I  differ 
very  widely  from  this  writer's  metaphysics  and  theology,  for  the  rea- 
sons assigned  in  my  eighth  letter  to  that  prelate.  But  as  the  gentle- 
man probably  is  anxious  for  employment,  I  shall  again  have  recourse 
to  my  Unitarian  acquaintance,  with  whom  I  differ  most  widely  in  doc- 
trine, but  who  appears  to  me,  be  it  said  without  offence,  to  be  the  most 
consistent  and  rational  Protestant  that  I  know.  I  shall  then  beg  of 
Protestant  Catholic  to  instruct  me  how  to  answer  himself  by  refuting 
the  Unitarian  who  thus  applies  the  principle  so  very  thoughtlessly  adopt- 
ed by  a  Protestant  Episcopalian.  "The  whole  matter  of  idolatry  is 
determined  by  the  sense  of  seeing.  No  man  hath  seen  the  invisible 
God ;  Jesus  Christ  was  seen  by  man,  to  the  sense  of  sight  he  was  a  man, 
and  yet  seen  in  human  shape,  seen  in  every  way  as  a  man ;  still  we  see 
him  adored,  by  Protestants. ' '  The  same  argument  is  repeated  in  para- 
graph 35.  What  my  answer  is,  may  be  found  in  my  letter  viii.  to 
Bishop  Bowen. 

Further  on,  in  the  same  paragraph  33,  he  states.  Catholics  say, 
that  Chi'ist  "meant  his  disciples  to  believe  contrary  to  the  testimony 
of  their  senses,  that  the  bread  which  the  Saviour  had  in  his  hand  was 
not  bread."  With  all  due  respect  for  the  most  sagacious  juggler,  they 
say  no  such  thing. — I  call  juggler,  a  person  who  endeavouring  to  keep 
the  semblance  of  the  same  expression,  substitutes  one  having  a  totally 
different  meaning.  Roman  Catholics  say  that  Christ  had  bread  at 
first;  that  without  changing  its  appearance,  he  changed  its  substance, 
so  that  bread  ceased  to  be  there,  but  a  totally  different  substance  came 
in  its  stead,  which  latter  however,  retained  the  appearance  of  the  bread, 
just  as  the  angel  that  appeared  to  Josue  had  the  appearance  of  a  man : 
now  Catholics  believing  this  to  have  occurred,  did  not  believe  that  what 
was  under  this  appearance  was  bread,  but  they  believed  it  was  not 
bread,  hence  they  would  beg  leave  to  say,  they  do  not  assert  what  your 
curious  correspondent's  legerdemain  imputes.  They  do  not  use  the 
absurd  proposition,  "Bread  is  not  bread,"  but  the  rational  one,  "The 
body  of  Christ,  though  having  the  appearance  of  bread,  is  not  bread, 
but  is  the  body  of  Christ."  Neither  do  they  believe  against  the  testi- 
mony of  their  senses,  for  their  senses  testify  only  of  appearances,  and 
the  appearances  are  exactly  as  the  senses  testify  them  to  be.  It  is  a 
different  question,  and  one  for  the  judgment,  and  not  for  the  senses, 
to  determine  what  is  the  nature  of  the  substance  which  the  appearance 
covers.  The  general  rule  is  that  we  ought  to  judge  it  to  be  bread;  but 
the  special  testimony  of  Christ  makes  this  case  an  exception  when  he 


122  DOCTRINE  Vol. 


says,  "This  is  my  body."  Upon  this,  two  questions  only  can  arise: 
first,  "Did  he  mean  his  body  in  our  senses?"  We  say  there  is  ample  and 
satisfactory  evidence  that  he  did;  and  next,  "Is  his  testimony  sufficient 
ground  for  our  belief  against  the  general  rule?" — We  are  convinced 
that  it  is.  We  are,  unfortunately,  as  blind  as  our  predecessors  were 
to  all  the  absurdities  said  to  flow  from  this  belief.  Your  curious  cor- 
respondent has  altogether  overlooked  a  material  fact  that  in  his  asser- 
tion that  the  Sacrament  remained  bread,  he  begged  the  question.  He 
has  honoured  me,  in  his  note  to  Essay  2,  with  being  "plausible  and 
subtle;"  I  should  be  very  ready  to  return  the  compliment  if  in  my  power. 
But,  alas!  I  cannot.  In  paragraph  34,  he  says  upon  the  same  subject, 
that  the  Church  is  not  better  authority  for  him  than  his  eyes,  as  to  what 
he  sees.  Nothing  shall  be  more  wallingly  conceded  by  me:  therefore 
the  Church  cannot  testify  to  him  that  what  he  sees  to  be  bread,  is  not 
bread.  His  proposition,  I  apprehend,  must,  in  order  to  be  philosophi- 
cally correct,  be  differently  construed.  I  am  not  one  of  those  who  admit 
that  it  is  by  sight  the  nature  of  substance  is  ascertained :  sight  will  tes- 
tify only  to  the  appearance ;  if  then  his  proposition  be  made,  "the  Church 
cannot  testify  to  me  that  what  appears  to  be  bread  does  not  appear  to 
be  bread ; "  I  will  as  readily  grant  this  too.  But  I  will  also  assert,  that 
the  Church  has  the  authority  of  Christ,  in  this  case,  to  declare  that  what 
appears  to  be  bread  is,  by  the  special  interference  of  God,  the  body  of 
Christ  now  clothed  ^vith  that  appearance :  as  she  has  the  same  authority 
to  declare  that  he  who  appeared  to  be  no  more  than  a  dying  criminal 
was  the  incarnate  Son  of  God. 

In  paragraph  35,  he  attempts  to  draw  a  distinction  between  the 
mystery  of  the  Eucharist  and  "the  Holy  Trinity,  and  other  mysterious 
doctrines  of  Christianity,"  upon  the  principle  that  "these  doctrines  re- 
late to  the  invisible  and  incomprehensible  nature  of  operations  of  Deity," 
and  that  "the  Eucharistic  elements  are  matter  of  sensible  observation 
and  acts."  lie  must  excuse  me  for  saying  that  I  do  not  understand 
either  the  ground  of  his  distinction,  or  the  meaning  of  his  last  phrase, 
and  I  assert  plainly  that  no  ground  of  distinction  exists.  For  even  ac- 
cording to  the  principle  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  it  will  not 
be  denied,  that  the  Deity  operates  in  some  invisible  and  incomprehen- 
sible manner,  in  the  Eucharist,  and  therefore  "this  doctrine  relates 
to  the  invisible  and  incomprehensible  operations  of  Deity."  Tillot- 
son's  phrase  has  been  before  considered  in  its  principle.  Our  sight  does 
not  deceive  us,  we  are  certain  that  the  appearances  which  we  see,  are 
there;  our  sight  takes  cognizance  of  nothing  more. — Josue's  sight  did 
not  testifv  to  him  that  it  was  the  angelic  substance  which  was  present, 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION        123 

but  what  it  testified,  was  truly  testified,  and  Josue  was  correctly  certain 
that  the  appearance  of  a  man  was  there,  though  in  truth  he  was  sub- 
sequently certain,  that  at  the  time  there  was  not  a  man  present  where 
his  appearance  was. 

In  paragraph  33,  he  tells  us  that  Christ  did  not,  on  any  occasion, 
ask  the  disciples  to  believe  him  against  the  evidence  of  their  senses. 
I  say,  nor  did  he  on  this  occasion ;  because  the  exception  which  he  makes, 
is  not  against  the  correct  testimony  of  the  senses,  but  to  the  conclusion 
usually  drawn  from  that  testimony;  and,  therefore,  he  appeals  to 
the  testimony,  to  establish  the  facts  of  miraculous  occurrence,  upon 
the  plea  that  the  disciples  are  to  follow  the  general  rule  in  all  cases, 
where  an  exception  is  not  plainly  and  fully  established,  as  it  was 
by  himself  in  the  special  case  of  the  Eucharist.  When  for  the  hack- 
neyed and  often  refuted  objections  of  the  vine,  the  shepherd,  and  the 
door,  he  will  produce  something  new,  perhaps  a  new  answer  will  be  given ; 
until  then,  it  will  suffice  for  any  reasonable  man  to  consider,  that  there 
can  be  no  analogy  between  a  professedly  parabolic  discourse,  and  the 
solemn  institution  of  the  most  important  sacrament  in  religion :  that 
it  would  be  ridiculous  to  assert,  that  because  Christ  spoke  figuratively 
sometimes,  his  expressions  must  always  be  figurative ;  and  that  where 
all  the  evidence  that  can  be  collected,  shows  the  one  expression  to  be 
a  mere  figure,  and  the  other  to  be  literally  and  plainly  meant,  that  we 
are  to  reject  this  evidence,  and  to  say  that  both  are  figures.  We,  be- 
sides, do  believe  Christ  to  be  actually  the  door,  in  the  very  manner  in 
which  he  plainly  says  he  is.  "I  am  the  door :  by  me,  if  any  man  shall 
enter  in,  he  shall  be  saved"  {John  x.  9).  In  like  manner,  we  believe 
him  to  be  actually  ' '  the  good  shepherd,  that  giveth  his  life  for  his  flock ' ' 
(/&.  11)  ;  in  the  same  way,  do  we  believe  him  to  be  actually  "the  vine,  of 
which  his  disciples  are  the  branches,"  in  the  very  plain,  literal  way, 
in  which  he  uses  the  words,  "as  the  branch  cannot  bear  fruit  of  itself, 
except  it  abide  in  the  vine;  no  more  can  ye,  except  ye  abide  in  me." 
{John  XV.  4,  5).  Thus  we  do  believe  all  his  words,  in  the  plain  import 
which  they  carry  with  them ;  nor  do  we  make  suppositions,  as  Archbishop 
Synge  does  in  paragraph  33,  to  establish  new  and  easy  meanings,  after 
"we  suppose  his  meaning  to  be"  what  the  Archbishop  has  made  it. 

I  do  not  question  but  the  meaning  which  Archbishop  Synge  "sup- 
poses" is  "easy  and  natural,"  and  implies  no  mystery,  and  would  be  very 
distinct  from  "that  invisible  and  incomprehensible  nature  of  operations 
of  Deity;"  but  this  is  with  me  a  very  sufficient  reason  for  its  rejection, 
because  all  the  ancient  witnesses  declare  that  the  Eucharist  was  always 
considered  a  sublime  mystery,  wrought  after  the  "invisible  and  incom- 


124  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

prehensible  nature  of  operations  of  Deity."  Neither  was  it  so  very 
"conformable  to  the  common  way  of  speaking  among  the  Jews,"  who 
"strove  among  themselves,"  saying:  "How  can  this  man  give  us  his 
flesh  to  eat?"  {John  vi.  52).  And  even  "many  therefore  of  his  dis- 
ciples, when  they  heard  this,  said :  This  is  a  hard  saying ;  who  can  hear 
it?"  {lb.  60).  As  to  Elfric's  pastoral  homily,  it  would  perhaps  be 
Avell,  before  you  again  quote  him,  to  inform  us  who  he  was,  of  what 
see  he  was  bishop,  and  what  reason  you  have  for  knowing  that  his  hom- 
ily was  either  his,  or  an  authentic  homily  of  any  bishop  of  the  English 
Church,  previous  to  the  days  of  Henry  VIII.,  because,  notwithstanding 
your  reference  to  Foxe  and  Collier,  there  has  hitherto  hung  a  most 
worrying  veil  of  ignorance  upon  all  those  very  necessary  topics.  You 
will  do  some  service,  if  you  clear  up  "this  mystery."  I  address  this  to 
you,  gentlemen,  because  I  know  not  whether  the  note  be  yours,  or  your 
correspondent's.  When  this  has  been  done,  I  shall  enter,  if  you  will, 
into  a  discussion  of  the  meaning  of  the  homily  itself ;  until  then,  it  would 
be  only  Avaste  of  time. 

In  his  paragraph  34,  your  correspondent  boldly  asserts : 

' '  The  evidence  of  Scripture,  however,  is  by  learned  and  candid  Eoman  Catholics 
themselves,  admitted  insufficient  for  the  faith,  which  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation 
implies,  if  the  church  does  not  make  this  literal  interpretation  the  true  one." 

To  support  this  allegation,  he  in  a  note  refers  to  Bellarmine's 
Treatise  on  the  Eucharist,  lib.  iii.,  chapter  xxiii.  This  is,  unquestion- 
ably, the  most  unfortunate  reference  he  could  have  made.  Bellarmine, 
in  chapter  xix.,  clearly  proves  the  doctrine  from  the  Scripture,  without 
any  reference  to  the  explanation  or  interpetation  of  the  church;  and, 
after  having  fully  done  so,  at  considerable  length,  he  closes  his  chapter 
with  this  passage : 

Adde,  quod  licet  in  verbis  Domini  esset  aliqua  obscuritas  vel  amhiguitas,  ea 
tamen  suilata  est,  per  multa  coiicilia  Catholicae  Ecclesiae,  et  Patrum  consensum. 

"Add  to  this,  that  even  though  there  should  be  any  obscurity  or  doubt  in  the 
words  of  our  Lord,  it  is  nevertheless  removed  by  many  councils  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
and  the  consent  of  the  fathers. ' ' 

This  is  not  admitting  the  insufficiency  of  the  scriptural  evidence 
which  he  has  proved  to  be  sufficient:  but  asserting,  that  even  though 
it  were  not  as  strong  as  he  showed  it  to  be,  still  the  doctrine  could  be 
proved  as  that  of  the  Scripture,  from  the  testimony,  that  such  was  al- 
ways the  meaning  attached  to  those  passages.  In  his  chapter  xx.,  he 
adduces  the  testimony  of  the  fathers;  in  chapter  xxi.,  he  adduces  the 
testimony  of  councils  and  writers  subsequent  to  the  age  of  those 
fathers;  in  chapter  xxii.,  he  shows  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation 
from  special  reasoning :  then  comes  chapter  xxiii.,  whose  title  is  Refel- 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION        125 


hoitur  Kemnitii  ohjectiones,  "The  objections  of  Kemnitz  are  refuted." 

The  third  of  these  objections  is,  that  Andradius,  Scotus,  and  Cameracen- 

sis,  Catholic  writers,  admit  the  insufficiency  of  the  evidence  of  Scripture 

to  support  the  doctrine.     Answering  this,  Bellarmine  writes: 

Quod  autem  ex  Andradio  et  Scoto,  atque  Cameracensi  Kemnitius  refert,  mala  fide, 

tit  ei  solemne  est,  refert. 

* '  But,  what  Kemnitz  quotes  from  Andradius,  Scotus,  and  Cameracensis,  he  quotes 

dishonestly,  as  is  his  solemn  custom. ' ' 

He  then  adduces  the  passages,  and  shows  that  Kemnitz  was  more 
than  a  match  for  your  curious  correspondent: 

"Thus  Kemnitz  makes  the  hypothetical  opinion  of  Andradius  absolute,  that  he 
might  take  the  occasion  of  calumniating  him;  upon  this  principle,  he  could  say  that 
Christ  was  a  liar,  and  could  prove  it,  by  the  testimony  of  Christ  himself.  {John  viii). 
"  If  I  say  that  I  have  not  known  him,  I  shall  be  like  to  you,  a  liar. ' ' 

The  only  ground  which  afforded  an\i:hing  like  the  shadow  of  sup- 
port for  the  assertion,  is  a  passage  of  an  individual,  Scotus,  upon  which 
Bellarmine,  and.  as  far  as  I  know,  all  other  divines  differ  from  him,  in 
which  he  says,  that  he  thinks  there  is  not  any  one  passage  of  Scripture 
so  completely  expressive  of  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  as  to 
force  {coget)  the  conviction  of  its  truth,  without  the  testimony  of  the 
church,  that  such  was  always  the  doctrine  derived  from  Christ,  and  de- 
livered in  the  Scripture.  This  is  a  very  different  view  from  that  given 
by  your  correspondent.  But,  even  supposing  the  opinion  of  Scotus  to 
be  correct,  it  would  not  tend  to  support  the  conclusion  sought  by  a 
"Protestant  Catholic,"  whose  object  is  to  condemn  the  adoration  as 
idolatry.  Let  them  grant,  what  is  not  the  fact,  that  no  one  text  of 
Scripture  evidently  proves  transubstantiation,  still  Scotus  and  the  Lu- 
therans say  that  the  real  presence  is  evidently  proved  by  many  texts, 
and  Luther  declared  that  he  was  anxious  to  deny  the  doctrine,  but  the 
texts  were  too  plain  in  its  support.  Hence,  under  any  circumstances, 
even  if  we  should  grant  him  Scotus,  and  transform  an  individual  into 
"learned  and  candid  Roman  Catholics,"  it  will  not  aid  his  object. 

In  the  same  paragraph  34,  he  asserts,  that  Protestant  writers  have 
abundantly  sho^vn  from  the  early  fathers,  that  they  held  the  doctrine 
of  the  Eucharist,  without  that  of  the  real  bodily  presence.  He  must 
not  be  displeased  at  my  asserting,  that  no  Protestant  writer  has  shown 
it,  though  several  have  attempted  it;  nor  is  it  true,  that  it  is  an  his- 
torical fact,  though  endeavoured  by  various  attestations  to  be  established 
as  such,  that  the  real  bodily  presence  of  Christ  was  not  asserted  until 
the  close  of  the  eighth  century,  nor  that  the  manner  of  change  in  the 
Eucharist  was  not  accounted  an  article  of  faith  until  the  twelfth.  He 
must  also  permit  us  to  think,  that  the  learned  Doctor  Wharton  has 


126  DOCTRINE  Vol. 


made  a  complete  failure  in  his  attempt.  But  I  do  not  undertake  to 
enter  upon  any  controversy  upon  this  point,  my  object  being  merely  to 
vindicate  myself  from  the  charge  of  having  made  an  untrue  assertion, 
when,  in  my  letters  to  Bishop  Bowen  I  stated,  that  they  who  exhibited 
us  as  idolaters,  were  guilty  of  misrepresenting  our  tenets.  Nor  is  it  a 
fact,  that  it  was  Innocent  III.  in  the  Council  of  Lateran,  established 
transubstantiation  as  to  doctrine,  though  I  admit  the  word  was  adopted 
by  that  Council,  as  consubstantial  respecting  the  divine  nature  of  Christ, 
was  in  the  first  Council  of  Nice,  but  in  each  case,  the  doctrine  pre-existed 
to  the  word :  and  he  only  uses  against  the  Catholic  in  one  instance,  the 
argument  which  he  declares  in  the  other  to  be  of  no  weight,  when  used 
by  the  Unitarian  against  himself. 

In  paragraph  37,  he  makes  a  strange  effort  to  bring  Bossuet  to 
his  side,  but  it  is  one  of  those  efforts  which  had  better  be  omitted.  Bos- 
suet does  not  object  to  the  word  spiritually  so  as  absolutely  to  reject  it, 
as  describing  the  eating  and  drinking  of  the  Eucharist.  But  why  does 
he  not  explain  to  us  exactly  what  was  the  meaning  of  the  Bishop  of 
Meaux?  Upon  the  question  whether  the  Eucharist  contained  the  body 
of  Christ  in  its  natural  state  of  existence,  he  says:  No,  but  in  a  state 
which  is  called  spiritualized,  such  a  state  as  it  Avas  in  after  its  resur- 
rection and  glorification ;  and  if  eating  the  body  of  Christ  spiritually  be 
really  eating  it  in  this  spiritualized  state,  the  expression  is  not  to  be  re- 
jected. I  apprehend  that  Bossuet  and  he  will  be  found  to  differ  very 
widely  in  their  doctrine  upon  this  head;  for  your  correspondent,  in 
paragraph  33,  rejects  and  appears,  with  Doctor  Jortin,  to  laugh  at  this 
distinction.  I  have,  however,  upon  this  topic,  a  very  serious  complaint ; 
for,  affecting  to  give  the  explanation  of  some  of  the  members  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  in  paragraph  33,  he  evidently  has  his  eye  upon 
the  distinction  in  my  Letter  VIII.,  No.  26,  to  Bishop  Bowen,  where  I 
state,  ' '  we  are  taught  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  in  this  supernatural  state 
in  the  Eucharist,  not  in  its  natural  mode  of  mortal  existence,  but  in  its 
spiritualized  state  of  immortal  existence  such  as  it  is  after  its  resurrec- 
tion." It  is  plain  here,  that  I  treat  of  the  same  body,  though  in  two  states 
of  existence,  mortal  and  immortal ;  not  of  two  distinct  bodies.  When  a 
man's  body  is  joined  to  the  soul,  and  is  living,  it  is  the  same  body  which, 
separated  from  the  soul,  is  dead;  no  person  would  undertake  to  say 
that  there  are  two  distinct  bodies,  but  it  is  the  same  identical  body  in  two 
very  different  states.  So  the  body  of  Christ,  in  its  mortal  and  natural 
state,  is  the  same  identical  body  as  in  its  supernatural  or  immortal  state ; 
the  body  is  the  same,  though  its  modes  of  existence  be  different.  Yet 
your  uncandid  correspondent  asserts  that  we  mean  two  distinct  bodies, 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION        127 


and  then  laughs  at  what  he  could  not  answer.  Where  I  used  the  words, 
"body  of  Christ,  in  this  supernatural  state,"  he  substitutes  the  words 
"supernatural  and  immortal  body,"  and  shortly  after  adds,  "of  such 
a  body  of  Christ  we  know  little  from  the  Scriptures.  Of  the  body 
in  which  he  suffered,  we  know  him  to  have  met  his  disciples  at  the  pass- 
over,  ' '  and  so  forth.  From  this,  it  is  evident  that  he  endearours  to  make 
us  appear  to  mention  two  distinct  bodies,  where  we  only  speak  of  one 
body  in  two  different  states. 

The  manner  in  which  Jortin  mentions  the  dispute  between  the  cor- 
ruptibles  and  incorruptibles  reminds  me  of  the  manner  in  which  Gib- 
bon and  his  fellows  mention  that  between  the  Homousians  and  Ho- 
moiousians,  where  he  says,  the  entire  dispute  was  about  the  letter  i; 
and  yet  it  is  the  introduction  of  this  letter  that  makes  your  church  cry 
out  "blasphemy"  against  the  Unitarians.  If  your  laugh  at  me  is  good, 
theirs  is  equally  so  at  you ;  no  two  cases  can  be  more  parallel  than  yours 
on  the  Eucharist,  and  theirs  on  the  divinity  of  Christ.  Yes,  good  sir, 
it  is  the  same  party  in  the  church,  that  is,  the  entire  church,  and  not 
some  of  her  members,  who  tell  you  about,  not  the  supernatural  body  of 
Christ,  but  the  body  of  Christ  in  its  supernatural  state  in  the  Eucharist ; 
and  it  better  behoved  Jortin  and  you,  as  divines,  to  learn  and  to  state 
correctly  what  the  question  was.  If  you  did,  your  assertion  about 
the  Council  of  Lateran  would  go  by  the  board,  and  this  was  what  you 
should  not  consent  to. 

It  might,  indeed,  be  very  true,  that  we  know  nothing,  by  inspired 
information,  of  the  presence  of  the  spiritualized  and  supernatural  body 
of  Christ  in  the  sacrament,  if  you  mean  to  say  that  it  is  a  different  body 
from  that  in  which  he  suffered,  for  he  has  not  two  bodies  numerically 
distinct ;  but  we  do  know  from  holy  writ,  in  more  places  than  one,  that 
there  were  apparently  incompatible  properties  of  that  body  in  coexist- 
ence: thus,  gentlemen,  when  he  used  the  words  quoted,  Handle  and  see 
that  a  spirit  has  not  flesh  and  bones  as  you  see  I  have,  we  have  equally 
strong  evidence  that,  both  in  coming  into  the  room  and  going  out  there- 
from, that  palpable  flesh  and  those  palpable  bones  were  carried  in  a 
supernatural  way,  through  solid  enclosures  {John  xx.  19,  26)  ;  because 
they  were  in  that  mode  of  existence  which  St.  Paul  describes,  and 
from  admitting  which  your  correspondent  makes  so  miserable  an  effort 
to  escape,  by  endeavouring  to  persuade  us  that  what  St.  Paul  describes 
as  the  nature  of  glorified  bodies,  is  no  more  than  to  say,  that  persons 
who  live  according  to  the  maxims  of  the  world,  flesh  and  blood,  cannot 
enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  This  is,  undoubtedly,  very  profound  the- 
ology! !  ! 


128  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

But,  at  length,  your  correspondent  vouchsafes  to  understand  us, 
and  triumphantly  asks,  "If  it  is  the  supernatural  body,  as  changed  by 
final  reception  to  glory,  which  is  in  the  bread  and  wine :  then  the  ques- 
tion occurs,  how  can  this  idea  accord  with  the  creed  of  Pius  IV.  ? ' '  and 
so  forth.  I  do  not  know.  Nor  is  it  necessary  for  me  to  answer;  be- 
cause your  question  ought  to  be  put  to  a  Lutheran,  not  to  a  Catholic. 
"We  do  not  say  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  in  the  bread  and  wine.  It 
is  a  little  strange,  that,  in  every  way  his  propositions  are  put,  he  misrep- 
resents our  tenets. 

Had  he  asked  how  the  doctrine  agreed  with  the  creed  of  Pius  IV., 
I  should  have  answered,  "Exactly."  Because  the  one  body  of  Christ, 
in  its  state  of  spiritualized  existence,  is  truly  and  substantially  present 
under  the  appearance  of  the  bread,  and  this  a  living  body,  such  as  it 
is  after  the  resurrection,  having  its  blood,  and  so  forth,  and  united  per- 
sonally with  the  soul  and  divinity,  really,  truly  and  substantially 
present,  but  visible  under  the  appearance  of  a  different  substance. 

How  many  misrepresentations  of  our  tenets  are  in  this  third  essay? 
Yet  we  are  told  that  we  have  no  cause  to  complain. 

I  remain,  gentlemen, 

Your  obedient,  humble  servant,  b.  c. 

LETTER  XIV. 

So  have  I  seen,  on  some  bright  summer's  day, 
A  calf  of  genius,  debonair  and  gay, 
Dance  on  the  bank,  as  if  inspired  by  fame, 
Fond  of  the  pretty  fellow  in  the  stream. 

Young. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Aug.  31,  1829. 
To  the  Editors: 

Gentlemen : — Your  curious  correspondent,  in  his  Essay  No.  4,  in 
your  May  issue,  commences  with  an  enumeration,  in  his  first  two  para- 
graphs, 38  and  39,  of  the  misrepresentations  which  he  undertakes  to 
prove  are  not  misrepresentations.  In  this  latter  paragraph,  he  takes 
the  liberty  of  changing  the  question  upon  one  of  the  heads,  in  a  way 
which  is  anything  but  correct.  It  is  apparently  but  a  softening  of 
the  phrase,  yet,  in  truth,  it  is  a  restriction  of  the  extent  of  his  terms, 
the  substitution  of  some  for  many :  1  pass  this  over,  and  come  to  the 
defence  which  he  sets  up  for  the  misrepresentation. 

In  paragraph  41,  he  undertakes  to  show  that  our  doctrine  of  pen- 
nance  is  not  misrepresented.     Before  I  proceed  further,  allow  me  to  re- 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION        129 

mind  you  that  the  word  penance  has,  in  our  nomenclature,  three  dis- 
tinct significations,  easily  discernible  from  each  other  by  the  context 
or  mode  of  its  use.  First ;  ' '  the  virtue  of  sufficient  repentance. ' '  Thus, 
a  person  is  said  to  be  filled  with  the  spirit  of  penance.  Next;  "the 
sacrament  by  which  the  sins  committed  after  baptism  are  remitted 
through  the  merits  of  Christ."  Thus,  a  person  is  said  to  have  recourse 
to  the  remedy  or  sacrament  of  penance.  Lastly;  "works  of  satisfac- 
tion." Thus,  a  person  is  said  to  have  done  or  performed  penance.  If 
your  correspondent  had  the  slightest  notion  of  our  doctrine,  he  must 
have  been  familiar  with  this  distinction.     I  must  presume  that  he  was. 

In  the  beginning  of  paragraph  41,  he  informs  us  that  "contrition, 
confession,  and  satisfastion,  are  equally  parts  of  the  sacrament  of  the 
penance,  and  together  make  the  matter  of  it."  Now,  the  manner  in 
which  the  crotchets  exhibit  this  passage  would  lead  one  to  suppose  it  was 
a  quotation  from  a  decree  of  the  council,  when,  in  truth,  it  is  not,  and  the 
very  word  equally,  upon  which  he  subsequently  rests  chiefly  for  his  con- 
clusion, is  not  either  in  the  explanatory  chapter,  or  in  the  decretal 
canon;  and  although  the  three  acts  are  usually  required,  they  are  by 
no  means  equally  essential ;  because  contrition,  or  the  spirit  of  penance, 
that  is  true  repentance,  is  always  actually  necessary,  and  so  essential, 
that  nothing  else  can  supply  its  want ;  actual  confession  is  sometimes  im- 
possible, the  sincere  intention  and  disposition  of  satisfaction  is  always 
Bu,fiicient,  and  penance  scarcely  ever  is  actually  performed  before 
or  at  the  administration  of  the  sacrament.  Thus,  the  words  which 
he  quotes  are  not  those  of  the  council;  and  they  imply  what  the  coun- 
cil did  not  require.  Again,  the  words  "the  thing  signified  by  it," 
which  he  gives  as  a  quotation,  are  not  in  the  chapter,  nor  in  the  decree : 
the  words  of  the  council  are  the  following : 

Sane  vero  res,  et  effectus  hujus  sacramenti,  quantum  ad  ejus  vim  et  efficaciam 
pertinet,  reconciliatio  est  cum  Deo,  and  so  forth. 

"But  truly  the  thing,  and  the  effect  of  this  sacrament,  so  far  as  relates  to  its 
force  and  efficacy,  is  reconciliation  to  God, ' '  and  so  forth. 

The  res,  "thing,"  is  not  "the  thing  signified,"  but  the  "thing  ob- 
tained." Our  notions  of  the  nature  of  a  sacrament  are  very  different 
from  those  of  several  of  your  divines,  and  their  expressions  do  not  con- 
vey our  doctrines. 

"The  express  language  of  the  second  decree  of  the  thirteenth  ses- 
sion of  the  Council  of  Trent,  is  precisely  of  this  tenor.  It  exhibits  con- 
fession and  satisfaction  as  inseparably  allied,  in  order  to  that  end  or 
effect  of  penance, ' '  and  so  forth.  I  am  convinced  that  your  correspond- 
ent would  never  expose  himself  as  he  does,  had  he  read  the  decrees 


130  DOCTRINE  Vol. 


which  he  affects  to  quote.  Now,  neither  the  second  chapter  nor  the  sec- 
ond decree  nor  the  second  canon,  has  one  syllable  upon  the  subject, 
much  less  of  the  tenor  of  the  subject  here  quoted.  I  have  looked  into 
Father  Paul,  which  he  stated  to  be  his  authority,  and  I  cannot  find  any- 
thing even  in  that  author  to  justify  his  expressions. 

So  far  from  the  council  exhibiting  confession  and  satisfaction  as 
inseparably  allied,  to  the  effect  of  penance  which  is  reconciliation  to  God, 
it  distinctly  states  in  chapter  iv.  of  this  session. 

Docet  praeterea,  etsi  contritionem  hanc  aliquando  charitatem  perfectam  esse 
contingat,  hominemque  Deo  reconciliare,  priusquam  hoc  sacramentum  actu  suscipiatur; 
ipsam  nihilominus  reconciliationem  ipsi  contritioni,  sine  sacramenti  voto,  quod  in  ilia 
includitur,  non  esse  adscrihendam. 

"It  teaches  moreover,  that  although  this  contrition  might  sometimes  be  perfect 
charity,  and  might  reconcile  a  man  to  God  before  this  sacrament  be  actually  received, 
nevertheless,  the  reconciliation  itself  is  not  to  be  ascribed  to  the  contrition  itself,  with- 
out the  desire  of  the  sacrament  which  is  included  therein." 

Thus,  so  far  from  being  inseparably  allied  thereto,  they  are  actually 
separated  therefrom,  except  so  far  as  relates  to  their  desire;  and  the 
reconciliation  takes  place  sometimes  long  before  they  actually  exist. 
Your  correspondent  is  certainly,  no  theologian.  He  handles  implements 
to  which  he  is  unused.  Even  in  Father  Paul,  he  might  have  seen  the 
above  statement  given  almost  in  the  very  words  of  the  council. 

The  council  in  chapter  xiv.  of  the  sixth  session  declared,  as  by 
reference  to  it  you  will  perceive,  that  temporal  punishment  is  not  al- 
ways remitted,  as  happens  in  baptism,  and  sometimes  upon  repentance 
for  the  sins  after  baptism;  that  is,  when  the  sorrow  is  such,  as  is  here 
described,  contrition  produced  by  perfect  charity  or  the  pure  love  of 
God;  for  in  those  two  cases  the  temporal  punishment  is  altogether  re- 
mitted by  God,  together  with  the  guilt  and  the  eternal  punislmient,  at 
the  moment  that  through  the  merits  of  Christ  he  takes  away  the  guilt. 
Thus  it  is  not  true  that  confession  and  satisfaction  are  inseparably 
allied,  in  order  to  reconciliation  with  God. 

He  next  makes  a  Latin  quotation  from  "the  same  decree"  (2d  of 
session  xiii)  not  one  word  of  which  is  found  in  the  chapter  or  the  decree 
answering  to  that  reference,  nor  is  such  passage  found  in  any  place  that 
I  know  of.  Had  he  inserted  one  word  which  he  appears  to  me  studious- 
ly to  have  omitted,  I  would  acknowledge  that  the  doctrine  was  exhibited 
with  substantial  correctness;  but  the  introduction  of  that  word  would 
have  prevented  the  conclusion  which  he  aims  at  drawing.  However,  he 
found  the  same  omission  in  Father  Paul,  that  most  accurate  historian! 
As  the  passage  is  short,  I  might  as  well  exhibit  this  as  a  specimen  of 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION        131 

various  readings,  and  an  instance  of  what  a  change  the  omission  of  one 
or  two  words  will  make. 

Father  Paid.  ' '  Of  satisfaction  the  synod  doth  declare,  That  the  sin  being 
remitted,  the  punishment  is  not  pardoned,  it  not  being  convenient  that  he  should  be 
so  easily  received  into  grace  who  hath  sinned  before  baptism  and  after,  and  be  left 
without  a  bridle  which  may  draw  him  from  other  sins,"  and  so  forth. 

Protestant  Catholic.  ' '  The  synod  doth  finally  declare  concerning  satisfaction, 
that  sin  being  pardoned  by  God,  the  punishment  is  not  altogether  remitted,  it  not  being 
consistent  with  divine  justice,  that  they  who  sin  after  baptism,  should  so  easily  and 
so  soon  be  received  to  grace,  as  those  who  through  ignorance  sinned  before  baptism. ' ' 

This  is  the  writer  who  informs  us  "In  stating  the  language  of  the 
decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  Father  Paul's  history  of  that  council, 
it  is  proper  to  mention,  is  our  authority."  The  words  printed  in  italics 
in  the  extract,  I  have  translated  from  his  own  Latin  quotation.  Between 
those  two  passages,  there  is  a  very  serious  difference.  Father  Paul 
says  absolutely,  and  unrestrictedly,  that  sin  being  remitted,  the  punish- 
ment is  not  pardoned,  whereas  your  correspondent  gives  us  a  very  dif- 
ferent proposition,  the  punislunent  is  not  altogether  remitted.  I  shall 
now  make  a  few  extracts  of  the  phrases  used  by  the  council,  but  I  can- 
not discover  any  passage  which  leads  me  to  find  what  part  the  above 
were  intended  to  represent,  unless  it  be  the  following. 

"Demum  quoad  satisf actionem,  quae  ex  omniius  paenitentiae  partibus,  quemad- 
modum  a  patribus  nostris  Christiano  populo  fuit  perpetuo  tempore  commendata,  ita 
una  maxime  nostra  aetate,  summo  pietatis  praetextu,  impugnatur  ab  iis,  qui  speciem 
pietatis  habent,  virtutem  autem  ejus  abnegarunt:  sancta  Synodus  declarat  falsum 
omnio  esse,  et  verbo  Dei  alienum,  culpam  a  Domino  nunquam  remitti,  quin  universa 
etiam  poena  condonetur:  perspicua  enim  et"^  illustria  in  sacris  litteris  exempla  reper- 
iuntur,  quibus  praeter  divinam  traditionem  hie  error  quam  manif estissime  revincitur. 
Sane  et  divinae  justitiae  ratio  exigere  videtur,  ut  aliter  ab  eo  in  gratiam  recipiantur, 
qui  ante  baptismum  per  ignorantiam  deliquerint;  aliter  vero,  qxd  semel  a  peccati  et 
daemonis  servitude  liberati,  et  accepto  Spiritus  Sancti  dono  scienter  "*  templum  Dei 
violare,  et "  Spiritum  Sanctum  contristare  non  formidaverint.  Et  divinam  elementiam 
decet,  ne  ita  nobis  absque  ulla  satisfactione  peccata  dimittantur,  ut,  occasione  accepta, 
peccata  leviora  putantes,  velut  injurii,  et "  contumeliosi  Spiritui  Sancto,  in  graviora 
labamur "  thesaurisantes  nobis  iram  in  die  irae.  Proculdubio  enim  inagnopere  a 
peccato  revocant,  et  quasi  fraeno  quodam  coercent  hae  satisf actiorae  paenae,  cau- 
tioresque  et  vigilantiores  in  futurum  paenitentes  efficiunt;  medentur  quoque  pecca- 
torum  reliquis;  et  vitiosos  habitus,  male  vivendo  comparatos,  contrariis  virtutum 
actionibus  tollunt,"  and  so  forth. — Sessio  xiv.  cap.  viii. 

' '  At  length  as  regards  satisfaction,  which  of  all  the  parts  of  penance  as  delivered 
at  all  times  to  the  Christian  people  by  our  fathers,  is  alone  chiefly  assailed  in  our  age 


"'Gen.  iii.  16,  17,  18,  19;  Numb.  xii.  10;  xx.  12;  2  Samuel  or  Kings,  xii.  13,  14. 
"I  Cor.  iii.  17. 
''''Eph.  iv.  30. 
"ffeb.  X.  29. 
''^  Eom.  ii.  5. 


132  DOCTRINE  Vol. 


under  the  greatest  pretext  of  piety,  by  those  -vvho  have  the  appearance  of  piety,  and 
have  rejected  its  virtue;  the  holy  Synod  declares,  that  it  is  altogether  false  and  for- 
eign to  the  word  of  God,  that  guilt  is  never  remitted  by  the  Lord,  unless  he  also  be- 
sto^ys  full  pardon  from  every  kind  of  punishment;  for  there  are  very  clear  and  illus- 
trious examples  found  in  the  sacred  Scriptures  by  which,  as  well  as  by  divine  tradi- 
tion, this  error  is  most  plainly  refuted.  And  truly,  the  reason  of  divine  justice  ap- 
pears to  require,  that  they  who  through  ignorance  sinned  before  baptism  should  be 
received  in  one  manner  into  grace ;  but  in  another  manner,  they  w^ho  being  once  freed 
from  sin,  and  delivered  from  the  slavery  of  the  devil,  and  having  received  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  have  not  dreaded  knowingly  to  violate  the  temple  of  God,  and  to  make 
sad  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  it  is  becoming  the  divine  clemency;  lest  sins  should  be  so 
forgiven  to  us  without  any  satisfaction,  so  that,  taking  occasion  thereof,  thinking  sins 
less  grievous,  as  if  with  injury  and  contempt  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  we  should  fall  into 
more  heavy  ones,  treasuring  up  for  ourselves  wrath  against  the  day  of  wrath.  For 
without  doubt  those  satisfactory  works  of  penance  do  greatly  recall  from  sin  and 
restrain  as  with  a  bridle;  and  do  make  penitents  more  cautious  and  vigilant  in  fu- 
ture; they  do  also  remedy  the  remains  of  sins;  and  take  away  by  the  performance  of 
the  acts  of  contrary  virtues,  the  habits  of  vice  contracted  by  living  badly,"  and  so 
forth. 

The  person  who  has  had  the  patience  to  compare  the  Latin  given 
in  the  essay  and  its  translation  with  that  of  the  council  and  its  transla- 
tion, as  given  here,  cannot  but  observe  how  grossly  defective  and  how 
palpably  wrong  was  Father  Paul ;  and  though  better  than  this  same  ac- 
curate and  honest  Father  Paul,  how  defective  was  your  correspondent. 
Neither  of  them  represents  the  meaning  of  the  council.  I  have  marked 
in  roman  letters  the  parts  of  the  original  which  correspond  to  the 
garbled  extract  given  by  "Protestant  Catholic."  I  shall  now  lay  be- 
fore you,  the  exact  difference  between  the  several  doctrines. 

Doctrine  of  the  Council. — When  God  remits  the  guilt  of  sin  to  the 

repentant  sinner,  he  always  remits  the  eternal  penalty  of  hell,  but  does 

not  always  remit  altogether  the  temporal  punishment  due  to  the  offence. 

Stated  hij  "Protestant  Catholic." — When  God  remits  the  guilt  of 

sin,  he  does  not  remit  the  punishment,  altogether. 

Stated  ly  Father  Paul.—^herx  God  remits  the  guilt  of  sin,  the 
punishment  is  not  remitted. 

In  the  view  of  the  coimcil,  the  sinner,  having  contracted  the  guilt 
of  mortal  sin,  is  liable  to  punishment  in  hell  for  eternity,  and  also  to 
temporal  punishment  even  in  this  life.  Upon  repentance,  the  mercy 
of  God  removes,  through  the  merits  of  Christ,  always  the  guilt  of  sin, 
and  always  the  liability  to  punishment  in  hell,  and  sometimes,  but  not 
always,  the  liability  to  temporal  punishment.  The  council  used  the 
two  words  non  semper,  "not  always,"  of  which  Protestant  Catholic 
suppresses  the  semper,  "always:"  and  it  also  used  the  two  words  poenam 
universam,  "entire  punishment,"  meaning  temporal  and  eternal,  which 


two         DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION         133 

words  your  correspondent  gives,  but  insists  that  in  all  eases  the  tem- 
poral punishment  remains  due,  bj'  suppressing  the  word  semper;  and 
Father  Paul,  by  omitting  semper  and  universam,  is  still  worse.  This 
is  abominable  dishonesty,  yet  efifected  merely  by  suppressing  two  words. 
Gentlemen,  it  is  such  conduct  as  this,  so  palpably  exhibited  as  we  un- 
fortunately find  it  generally  to  be,  which  caused  the  Reverend  Doctor 
Whitaker,  Protestant  Vicar  of  Blackburn,  in  England,  in  his  Vindica- 
tion of  Mary  (vol.  iii.,  p.  2,)  to  write:  "Forgery — I  blush  for  the  honour 
of  Protestantism  while  I  write  it — seems  to  have  been  peculiar  to  the  re- 
formed ...  I  look  in  vain  for  one  of  those  accursed  outrages  of  imposi- 
tion amongst  the  disciples  of  Popery. ' ' 

In  this  same  forty-first  paragraph,  your  correspondent  again  un- 
truly asserts:  "the  temporal  penalty  inflicted  by  the  church  as  the  satis- 
faction, which  is  an  essential  part  of  the  sacrament  of  penance,  remains 
to  be  undergone." 

Now,  it  is  a  proposition  which  is  fully  and  plainly  taught  by  the 
council :  That  the  sinner  who,  having  received  from  God  the  divine  gift 
of  perfect  charity,  and  dying  in  this  disposition  of  true  and  perfect 
contrition,  should  have  desired  the  sacrament  of  penance,  without  hav- 
ing been  able  to  obtain  it,  and  without  having  been  able  to  any  satis- 
factory w^ork  of  penance,  will,  through  the  merits  of  Jesus  Christ,  be 
reconciled  to  God,  and  will  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven  without  suf- 
fering any  pain  of  purgatory,  and  thus,  even  though  he  had  not  received 
absolution,  he  would  be  saved,  both  from  hell  and  from  purgatory. 
Such  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  in  the  sixth  and  fourteenth 
sessions.  As  my  object  is  not  to  enter  into  a  theological  defence  of  our 
doctrines,  but  to  exhibit  the  misrepresentations  of  "Protestant  Catholic," 
I  merely  refer  him  to  the  places  where  the  doctrine  is  found.  So  far 
from  its  being  true  that  the  sinner  must  suffer  in  both  worlds,  this  man 
would  not  suffer  in  either,  which  contradicts  his  assertions. 

In  this  same  paragraph  he  states  that  his  conclusion  will  hold  good 
that  the  temporal  punishment  must  be  indispensably  undergone  by  every 
sinner,  unless  an  indulgence  be  interposed.  Here  are  two  egregious 
blunders;  because,  in  the  first  place,  where  the  temporal  as  well  as  the 
eternal  punishment  is  remitted,  as  in  the  case  of  the  contrition  above 
described  by  the  council,  the  remission  is  not  by  the  interposition  of  an 
indulgence ;  and  secondly,  the  penance  imposed  in  the  sacrament  of 
penance  is  not  remitted  nor  diminished  by  the  interposition  of  an  indulg- 
ence. It  is  very  troublesome  to  have  to  do  with  a  man  who  is  ignorant 
of  his  subject. 

Equally  untrue  is  his  assertion  in  the  same  paragraph,   that  we 


134  DOCTRINE  Vol. 


"consider  some  temporal  pimishment  to  await  the  sinner  in  purgatory, 
by  way  of  satisfaction  for  his  sins."  If,  as  it  is  plain  he  and  the  com- 
piler of  the  Catechism  did  mean,  it  is  meant  to  assert  that  every  sinner 
who  is  saved  must,  previously  to  entering  heaven,  pass  through  purga- 
tory, we  hold  no  such  doctrine.  AVe  believe  that  several  of  the  saints  now 
in  heaven  never  were  in  purgatory.  Even  your  curious  correspondent 
feels  that  this  assertion  of  his  was  not  true;  for  he  immediately  adds: 
"Protestants  may,  perhaps,  err  in  saying  that  every  sinner,  in  order  to 
make  satisfaction  to  God  for  his  sins,  must  suffer  some  temporal  punish- 
ment in  purgatory."  Yet  he  did  say  it,  and  reasoned  upon  the  sup- 
position of  its  truth ;  and  when  I  denied  that  we  held  any  such  doctrine, 
he  stated  that  I  was  deceiving  my  readers,  and  he  undertook  to  show 
that  I  was  not  warranted  in  making  the  denial.  But  the  next  blunder 
which  he  makes  is  so  glaring  that  I  can  scarcely  believe  he  did  not  w^ite 
the  nonsense,  in  order  to  try  and  create  a  feeling  of  ridicule  against  us. 
' '  Sinners  only  whose  offences  are  venial,  may,  perhaps,  by  the  Romanist 
doctrine  of  purgatory,  be  doomed  to  its  torments;  whilst  those  whose 
sins  are  mortal  may  be  thoroughly  absolved  and  pardoned  before  they 
die."  Thus  he  would  exhibit  us  as  believing  that  the  greater  sinner 
suffers  less,  and  the  lesser  sinner  suffers  more!  !  ! — If  he  thought  this 
was  our  doctrine,  he  is  extremely  ignorant  as  a  divine ;  if  he  knew  our 
doctrine,  he  is  criminally  dishonest.     "Which  he  is,  I  cannot  say. 

As  some  well  disposed  Protestant  might  read  this,  I  shall  more  ex- 
plicitly state  our  doctrine;  and  his  gross  inaccuracy  will  be  seen,  and 
his  many  blunders  will  be  easily  counted  up. 

We  believe,  1.  That  sin  is  a  violation  of  God's  law.  2.  The  sinner 
becomes  guilty  upon  its  violation.  3.  The  consequence  of  guilt  is  pen- 
alty. 4.  A  serious  violation  is  called  mortal  sin.  5.  A  slight  violation 
is  called  venial  sin.  6.  Persons  guilty  of  mortal  sin  are  liable  to  eter- 
nal punishment  in  hell.  7.  Persons  guilty  of  venial  sin  are  liable  to 
temporal  punishment.  8.  No  person  can  enter  heaven  with  the  stain 
of  guilt  upon  him.  9.  The  guilt  is  removed  only  by  the  mercy  of  God, 
upon  the  application  of  the  merits  of  Christ,  after  the  repentance  of 
the  sinner.  10.  "When  God  remits  the  guilt  of  the  punishment,  he  does 
not  always  remit  all  the  temporal  punishment,  'though  he  always  remits 
the  eternal  punishment.  11.  Persons  who  have  true  contrition,  arising 
from  perfect  charity,  have  the  guilt  and  the  eternal  and  temporal  pun- 
ishment wholly  and  fully  remitted,  and  without  any  application  of  an 
indulgence.  12.  The  temporal  punishment  might,  through  the  merits 
of  Christ  and  the  mercy  of  God,  be  removed  by  satisfactory  works  of 
penance,  performed  in  this  life  by  the  repentant  sinner,  who  has  ob- 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION        135 

tained  pardon  of  guilt  and  remission  of  eternal  punishment.  13. 
Should  he  die  before  he  has  fully  suffered  what  God  had  allotted,  or  been 
able  to  obtain  its  remission,  he  will  suffer  the  unremitted  or  unsatisfied 
part  in  purgatory;  after  which,  being  free  from  guilt,  and  not  liable 
to  punishment  of  any  description,  he  will,  through  the  mercy  of  God 
and  the  merits  of  Christ,  enter  heaven.  14.  Because  of  their  being 
in  our  communion,  and  their  being  free  from  guilt,  and  in  regard  to 
the  merits  of  the  Saviour,  of  which  they  are  partakers,  and  by  which 
our  prayers  are  enriched,  God  will  alleviate  the  sufferings  of  those  who 
may  be  detained  in  purgatory,  upon  the  prayers  of  those  who  with 
proper  dispositions  intercede  for  them. 

Such  is  our  doctrine,  which  your  correspondent  has  grossly  mis- 
represented; whether  wilfully  or  not  matters  nothing  to  us,  but  much 
to  him.  As  to  the  suffeing  being  by  fire  or  not,  we  have  no  certain  knowl- 
edge of  faith,  neither  are  we  bound  to  believe  without  stronger  evidence 
than  we  possess,  that  such  is  the  mode  of  suffering ;  but  such  is  the  gen^ 
eral  opinion  of  the  western  division  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 
Others,  fully  in  our  communion,  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  suffering  is 
by  darkness:  in  the  estimation  of  each,  this  is  a  topic  of  opinion,  not 
of  faith.  A  Roman  Catholic  is  bound  only  to  believe  "that  there  is  a 
purgatory,  and  that  the  souls  therein  detained  are  helped  by  the  suf- 
frages of  the  faithful." 

The  forty-second  and  forty-third  paragraphs,  as  they  relate  to  pen- 
ance, are  but  unbecoming  rant  and  illogical  inference.  In  the  forty- 
second  your  correspondent  states,  that  in  ours,  as  in  every  other  human 
society,  there  are  hypocrites,  fools,  and  knaves ;  and  that  abuses  of  which 
some  of  our  own  good  members  complain,  have  been  introduced  and  are 
continued  by  such  persons,  under  the  alleged  warrant  of  the  church's 
teaching,  and  the  Pope 's  permitting.  Is,  then,  the  allegation  of  a  knave, 
of  a  fool,  or  of  a  hypocrite,  the  evidence  upon  which  a  church  of  nearly 
two  hundred  millions  of  Christians  is  to  be  condemned  as  holding  doc- 
trine which  she  disavows,  and  which  her  upright  and  intelligent  mem- 
bers "indignantly  disclaim,"  to  use  his  own  expressions?  Gentlemen, 
is  your  case  so  desperate  as  to  require  your  retreat  to  this  disgraceful 
citadel?  Is  this  the  accurate  reasoning — this  the  high-minded  honour — 
this  the  generous  liberality — this  the  dignified  demeanour  of  members 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church? — I  would  say,  it  is  impossible,  but 
that  it  is  a  fact !  !  ! 

Of  all  the  miserable  shifts  of  a  disappointed  sophister,  that  which 
is  least  honourable  is,  after  avowing  that  "many  virtuous  and  enlight- 
ened Roman  Catholics,  especially  in  England  and  the  United  States,  in- 


136  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

dignantly  refuse  to  recognise  in  them  (the  imputed  doctrines  and  prac- 
tices) anything  belonging  to  their  system  of  institutions;"  still,  with  the 
knowledge  that  their  doctrine  is  the  same  as  that  of  every  other  Cath- 
olic in  the  world;  to  assert  without  evidence,  that  those  doctrines  are 
held  elsewhere,  and  to  assert  against  evidence  that  they  are  those  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  Yet  such  is  the  conduct  of  your  corres- 
pondent. He  makes  groundless  assertions  of  "pious,  faithful,  and  pure" 
priests  now  to  be  found,  deploring  the  fact  of  such  abuses.  Why  not 
name  those  pious  and  good  men?  I  must  avow,  that  to  me  this  is  news 
indeed.  I  know  of  no  such  fact  as  he  states :  yet  he  assertts  that  they 
may  be  everywhere  found.  Can  he  name  one  person,  or  one  place?  I 
willingly  admit  that  he  might  find  in  many  places,  pious  and  faithful 
priests  deprecating  the  evil  and  shame  of  such  misconduct  as  his,  the 
unfounded  imputation  of  such  doctrines  to  our  Church! 

As  to  the  testimony  of  Protestants  who  have  visited  Catholic  coun- 
tries, and  which  he  refers  to,  I  shall  probably  in  my  next  letter  examine 
the  value  of  the  special  instances  which  he  adduces,  and  it  is  only 
from  the  nature  of  the  special  testimony  a  correct  general  result  can  be 
drawn.  I  shall,  however,  here  make  one  general  remark  founded  upon 
my  own  personal  knowledge.  Others  might  have  been  more  fortunate 
in  their  acquaintances  than  I  have  been ;  though  perhaps,  not  many  have 
had  much  more  extensive  opportunity.  I  have  known  some  of  the  best- 
informed  and  most  liberal  Protestants,  men  who  would  have  done  honour 
to  any  circle  of  society,  and  many  of  whom  have  been  conspicious  in 
public  and  private  life,  who  have  visited  Catholic  countries.  Several 
have  had  prejudices  removed,  many  have  had  them  extended  and  con- 
firmed, and  others  had  them  scarcely  in  any  respect  modified.  But  of 
the  entire  number,  I  cannot  now  bring  to  my  recollection  a  single  indiv- 
idual who  was  fitted  to  give  testimony  to  others,  or  to  form  a  correct 
judgment  himself,  respecting  the  ceremonial  or  practices  which  came 
under  his  observation.  This  will,  to  several  of  my  readers,  appear 
strange :  but  the  explanation  is  simple.  Not  one  of  them  had  previously 
acquired  the  necessary  information :  not  one  of  them  knew  the  principles, 
the  doctrines,  or  the  history  of  the  Church :  so  far  from  having  the  proper 
information,  they  had  previously  misinformed  themselves,  by  reading 
such  works  as  your  writers  produce.  As  well  might  you  expect  a  cor- 
rect judgment  of  our  conduct,  character  and  institutions,  from  an 
English  traveller  who  had  prepared  for  a  visit  to  these  States  by  read- 
ing as  a  correct  and  accurate  statement  Paulding's  JoJui  Bull  in 
America,  and  then,  with  a  firm  belief  in  its  truth,  was  driven  through 
our  States  on  a  tour  of  observation.     I  would  just  as  soon  expect  a  Kal- 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION        137 

muc  Tartar  to  comprehend  the  process  of  carrying  a  bill  through  Con- 
gress, or  of  conducting  a  suit  through  our  courts,  or  to  comprehend 
the  purport  of  our  festive  national  celebrations,  as  to  find  a  well-disposed 
and  well-informed  Protestant,  who  has  only  the  notions  which  you  and 
yours  generally  give  of  our  religion,  comprehend  a  single  religious 
celebration  of  the  Catholic  Church.  I  never  had  to  exercise  more  self- 
restraint,  than  when  listening  to  the  incongruous  remarks  of  some  of 
my  most  kind  and  respectable  friends,  who  imagined  they  displayed 
knowledge  and  liberality. 

What  in  the  name  of  common  sense,  can  be  more  ridiculous  than 
for  one  of  those  lordlings  (Mountcashel  I  believe)  gravely  to  state,  as 
your  correspondent  relates,  that  "Popery  was  little  understood  in 
England,"  where  the  premier-earl-marshal,  and  a  number  of  the  aris- 
tocracy, and  nearly  a  million  of  the  people  were  Roman  Catholics?  It 
is  true  the  Protestants  did  not  then  know  as  well  as  they  do  now,  what 
that  religion  is.  But  was  it  not  more  ridiculous  for  this  same  nobleman 
to  inform  the  people  of  Ireland  as  he  did,  that  they  did  not  know  their 
own  religion  as  well  as  he  did?  He  said  that  he  learned  it  in  Spain, 
Yet  the  four  archbishops  of  Ireland  and  two  or  three  of  her  bishops, 
at  that  very  period,  were  prelates  who  had  learned  and  taught  theology 
in  Spain !  and  your  curious  correspondent  has  the  assurance  to  tell 
us  that  we  in  America  understand  very  little  about  our  religion.  I 
suppose  he  means  as  it  exists  in  the  Catholic  nations  of  Europe,  though 
our  prelates  and  clergy  and  laity,  are  not  only  composed  of  native  Amer- 
icans North  and  South,  but  of  citizens  adopted  from  Ireland,  from 
England,  from  France,  from  Spain,  from  Italy,  from  Portugal,  from 
Germany,  from  Holland,  and  so  forth.  He,  who,  for  aught  I  know, 
was  never  in  any  one  of  those  countries,  vouchsafes  to  inform  us  who 
have  come  from  the  very  spot,  that  he  knows  our  religion  in  that  place 
better  than  we  do !  This  is  a  degree  of  modesty  to  which  we  do  not 
aspire. 

Will  your  correspondent  then  account  for  this  extraordinary  fact. 
That  there  is  scarcely  a  Catholic  congregation  in  the  United  States  in 
which  you  will  not  find  blended  together,  the  natives  of  five  or  six  for- 
eign nations,  severed  not  only  by  seas  and  mountains,  but  by  language 
and  customs,  and  yet  they  are  all  found  most  harmoniously  to  agree 
in  doctrine  and  practice ! — This  is  an  exhibition  which  is  peculiar  to 
"the  Church  of  all  nations;"  when  he  can  give  me  a  parallel  fact  in  his 
society,  I  shall  cease  to  be  amused  at  his  foolish  usurpation  of  the  name 
of  "Catholic." 

One  other  remark  is  perhaps  called  for  by  the  note  to  paragraph 


138  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

42,  by  Menclham.  We  desire  to  be  judged  by  the  decisions  of  the  Coun- 
cil of  Trent,  why  do  our  adversaries  fly  from  its  application  ? — The  mis- 
erable sophistry,  that  individuals  cannot  disclaim,  because  individuals 
cannot  decide,  is  too  peurile.  Though  an  individual  cannot  pass  an  act 
of  Congress,  yet  he  can  testify  that  such  an  act  has  been  passed;  or 
where  he  hears  it  falsely  asserted  that  such  a  law  exists,  he  can  testify 
that  it  does  not,  though  he  could  neither  enact  nor  repeal  nor  modify 
it.     Our  church  decides,  and  we  know  and  can  apply  its  decisions. 

In  paragraph  43,  the  writer,  w^ho,  in  the  preceding  one  had  the  indel- 
icacy to  charge  us  without  evidence,  and  against  evidence,  with  priest- 
craft and  Jioly  immorality,  now  avows  that  what  he  charges  "is  not  our 
doctrine  and  practice  as  required  by  the  highest  authority  of  our  church 
to  be  taught  and  inculcated,  nor  as  they  are  everywhere  taught  and  in- 
culcated;" now  his  note-writer,  Mendham,  stated  that  it  was  to  this 
faith  and  discipline  one  ought  to  look  for  the  "true  and  genuine  char- 
acter" of  the  Roman  sect.  Thus,  your  correspondent  avoids  the  very 
mode  w'hich  his  own  associate  whom  he  quotes  with  approbation,  points 
out.  And  what  mode  does  he  follow?  He  looks  to  "what  is  known  and 
observed  to  be  in  some  portion  of  the  Roman  Catholic  communion," 
and  to  what  might  be  ' '  anyw^here  within  its  limits. ' '  That  is,  as  he  told 
us  before,  "There  might  be  hypocrites  and  knaves  and  fools  anywhere 
in  your  church,  and  in  fact  there  are  some  in  various  portions  of  it. 
But  your  governing  authority  everywhere  teaches  and  inculcates,  and 
good  members  adhere  to  doctrines  and  practices,  opposed  to  the  conduct 
of  those  fools  and  knaves;  but  you  must  have  the  character  of  your 
church  depicted  from  the  misconduct  of  the  fools  and  knaves,  and  not 
from  the  uniform  teaching  of  your  tribunal. ' ' — Such  is  the  avow^ed  prin- 
ciple on  which  we  are  calumniated,  such  the  mode  in  which  we  are  rep- 
resented !  And  you  do  not  blush  and  hide  your  heads  in  shame  at  the 
avow^al ! ! !  There  is  a  point  in  misconduct  at  which  shame  and  honour 
cease  to  be  found!     It  is  not  for  me  to  apply  the  observation. 

As  to  his  queries,  I  for  one  will  pretend  to  say  that  the  correction 
of  the  sinner  is  attained  by  the  means  of  the  sacrament  of  penance. 
I  also  again  charge  your  correspondent  with  gross  misrepresentation  by 
introducing  the  word  adequate  before  "satisfaction,"  because  no  Roman 
Catholic  asserts  that  the  satisfaction  made  by  the  sinner  is  adequate. 
He  would  condemn  as  heretical  the  assertion  which  is  here  attributed  to 
himself.  The  adequate  satisfaction  is  made  only  by  Christ.  I  also 
assert,  that  in  no  country  does  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  permit,  nor 
could  she  permit  the  medicinal  penance,  or  medicinal  satisfaction  im- 
posed in  the  sacrament  of  penance  by  the  priest  upon  the  penitent  to  be 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION        139 


performed  by  another,  and  I  lay  claim  to  some  information  and  to  some 
candour. 

When  he  undertook  to  correct  my  statements,  he  ought  to  have  been 
prepared  with  testimony  instead  of  useless  questions  and  vapid  decla- 
mation. 

I  remain,  gentlemen, 

Your  obedient,  humble  servant, 

B.  c. 

LETTER  XV. 

And  were  they  vain,  those  soothing  lays  ye  sung? 

Children  of  Fancy!     Yes,  your  song  was  vain: 
On  each  soft  air  though  rapt  attention  hung, 

And  silence  listened  on  the  sleeping  plain. 

The  strains  yet  vibrate  on  my  ravished  ear. 

And  still  to  smile  the  mimic  beauties  seem. 
Though  now  the  visionary  scenes  appear 

Like  the  faint  traces  of  a  vanished  dream. 

Langhorne. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Sept.  7,  1829. 
To  the  Editors : 

Gentlemen : — It  was  very  kind  in  your  correspondent  to  warn  us  to 
be  discreet.  We  do  not  every  day  meet  with  so  generous  an  opponent. 
Others,  less  charitable  than  he  is,  would  have  encouraged  us  to  do  those 
deeds  of  indiscretion  which  would  tend  to  their  advantage;  but  "Pro- 
testant Catholic,"!!  already  more  than  triumphant,  scorns  to  stoop  so 
low.  He  discovers  our  weak  point  and  magnanimously  cautions  us  not 
to  expose  it.  "On  the  subject  of  indulgences,  it  is  indiscreet  in  Cath- 
olics to  say  much."  I  shall  take  his  advice  and  write  but  little.  How- 
ever, I  shall  vie  with  him  in  generosity,  by  candidly  avowing  the  reason. 
To  write  much  is  not  necessary  for  my  purpose.  My  object  is  only  to 
prove  that  in  my  letters  to  Bishop  Bowen,  I  did  not  hazard  a  statement 
which  I  could  not  support.  I  stated  that  it  was  a  misrepresentation  of 
Roman  Catholic  doctrine  and  practice  to  assert  either  of  the  following 
propositions. 

' '  That  the  Pope  grants  indulgences  whereby  he  sometimes  remits  all  penances  of 
such  sins  as  shall  be  committed  for  a  great  number  of  years  to  come. 

' '  That  the  Pope  grants  indulgences  whereby  he  sometimes  remits  all  penances  of 
such  sins  as  shall  be  committed  during  a  man 's  whole  life. 

' '  That  those  indulgences  are  considered  by  many  Eoman  Catholics  as  licenses  to 
commit  sin. 


140  DOCTRINE  Vol. 


' '  That  the  public  sale  of  those  licenses  to  commit  sin,  is  practised  by  the  author- 
ity of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  or  of  the  Pope. ' ' 

He  makes  scarcely  an  effort  to  prove  the  truth  of  one  of  the  propo- 
sitions.    He  merely  declaims. 

He  states  that  "It  (the  subject  of  indulgences)  is  too  plain  and  uni- 
versally known  an  instance  of  the  corruption  of  the  Church."  But  this 
assertion  is  not  disproving  the  truth  of  any  one  of  my  propositions. 
He  says:  "which  (corruption)  even  the  Council  of  Trent  left  very  im- 
perfectly remedied."  The  doctrine  of  indulgences  and  the  abuse  of 
indulgences  are  two  very  different  subjects;  as  different  as  the  use  of 
medicine  and  its  abuse;  the  use  of  meat  and  drink  is  not  their  abuse. 
Your  correspondent  does  not  vouchsafe  to  inform  us  whether  he  looks 
upon  an  indulgence  to  be  in  any  way  useful  or  available,  and  if  he  does, 
to  what  extent.  I  shall  exhibit  what  the  church  usually  teaches  her 
children  upon  the  subject. 

"Q.     Can  we  cancel  our  sins  by  our  own  satisfactory  works? 
A.     No ;  our  sins  can  be  cancelled  only  by  the  merits  of  Jesus  Christ. 
Q.     What  do  you  mean,  then,  by  saying  that  penance  is  a  satisfac- 
tion for  sin? 

A.  I  mean,  that  when  by  the  merits  of  Christ,  the  guilt  of  sin  and 
-its  consequences,  damnation,  are  remitted,  a  temporal  punishment  re- 
mains due,  of  which  w^e  may  procure  remission,  by  penitential  works, 
which  also  have  their  value  from  the  merits  of  our  Redeemer. 

Q.  Will  the  penance  enjoined  in  the  confession,  always  satisfy  for 
our  sins? 

A.  No;  but  whatever  else  is  wanting  may  be  supplied  by  indul- 
gences, and  our  own  penitential  endeavours. 

Q.     What  does  the  church  teach  concerning  indulgences? 
A.     That  Christ  gave  power  to  the  church,  to  grant  indulgences; 
and  that  they  are  most  useful  to  Christian  people.     {Cone.  Trid.  xi.  25.) 
Q.     What  is  the  use  of  an  indulgence? 

A.  It  releases  from  canonical  penances,  enjoined  by  the  church  on 
penitents  for  certain  sins. 

Q.     Has  an  indulgence  any  other  effect? 

A.  It  also  remits  the  temporary  punishments,  with  which  God  often 
visits  our  sins ;  and  which  must  be  suffered  in  this  life,  or  in  the  next 
unless  cancelled  by  indulgences,  by  acts  of  penance,  or  other  good  works. 
Q.  Has  the  church  power  to  grant  such  indulgences? 
A.  Yes;  Whatsoever,  says  Christ  to  St.  Peter,  thou  shalt  loose 
upon  earth,  it  shall  be  loosed  also  in  heaven.  {Matt.  xvi.  19 ;  //  Cor. 
ii.  10). 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION        141 


Q.     To  whom  does  the  church  grant  indulgences  ? 

A.  To  such  only  as  are  in  the  state  of  grace,  and  are  sincerely  de- 
sirous to  amend  their  lives,  and  to  satisfy  God's  justice  by  penitential 
works. 

Q.  Is  an  indulgence  a  pardon  for  sins  to  come,  or  a  license  to  com- 
mit sin? 

A.  No;  nor  can  it  remit  past  sins,  for  sin  must  be  remitted  by 
penance  as  to  the  guilt  of  it,  and  as  the  eternal  punishment  due  to  mor- 
tal sin,  before  an  indulgence  can  be  gained. 

Q.     Why  does  the  church  grant  indulgences? 

A.  To  assist  our  weakness;  and  to  supply  our  insufficiency  in  sat- 
isfying the  Divine  Justice  for  our  transgressions. 

Q.  When  the  church  grants  indulgences,  what  does  it  offer  to  God 
to  supply  our  weakness  and  insufficiency,  and  in  satisfaction  for  our 
sins? 

A.  The  merits  of  Christ,  which  are  infinite  and  superabundant, 
together  with  the  virtues  and  good  works  of  his  Virgin  Mother,  and  of 
all  his  saints. 

Q.     What  conditions  are  generally  necessary  to  gain  indulgences? 

A.  A  good  confession  and  communion,  and  a  faithful  compliance 
with  the  other  good  works  which  the  church  requires  on  such  occasions. 

Q.  What  are  the  other  good  works  which  the  church  usually  pre- 
scribes, in  order  to  gain  indulgences? 

A.  Prayer,  fasting,  and  alms  deeds;  which  good  works,  besides 
confession  and  communion,  are  recommended  by  indulgences ;  and  on  this 
account  also,  they  are  most  useful  to  Christian  people." — Catechism, 
Lesson  xxx. 

Now,  the  Council  of  Trent  did  not  decide,  as  perhaps,  he  would 
wish,  that  an  indulgence  was  a  corruption,  or  a  superstition ;  but  as 
there  did  exist  several  abuses,  it  applied  a  remedy  in  the  following  de- 
crees :  In  the  twenty-first  session,  held  on  the  16th  of  July,  1562,  chap- 
ter ix.,  "On  Reformation,"  after  adverting  to  the  decrees  of  the  Coun- 
cils of  Lateran,  of  Lyons,  and  of  Vienne,  having  applied  remedies 
"against  the  wicked  abuses  of  quests,"  and  complaining  of  the  inef- 
ficacy  of  those  remedies,  and  the  scandals  which  those  continued  abuses 
perpetuated,  "totally  abolished  their  use  and  name  throughout  Christen- 
dom:" after  having  then  commanded  that  they  should  under  no  colour 
be  permitted,  it  proceeds  to  regulate  that  the  indulgences  or  spiritual 
benefits,  shall  be  published  by  the  ordinaries  accompanied  by  two  mem- 
bers of  the  Chapter,  and  forbids  any  renumeration  to  be  given  or  re- 
ceived for  the  publication :  but  any  alms  which  might  be  bestowed,  are 


1-12  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

to  be  fully  and  faithfully  applied  to  pious  uses,  so  that  no  profit  or  gain 
shall  arise  from  the  practice  of  piety.  In  the  twenty-fifth  session,  cele- 
brated on  the  4th  of  December,  1563,  it  was  decreed,  after  stating  that 
the  power  had  been  left  by  Christ  in  the  church,  and  was  used  from 
the  most  ancient  times,  to  the  benefit  of  the  Christian  people,  and  con- 
demning all  who  contradict  this :  ' '  But  in  granting  those,  it  desires  that 
moderation  be  had  according  to  the  custom  of  old,  and  approved  in  the 
Church,  lest  by  too  great  a  facility,  ecclesiastical  discipline  should  be 
enervated.  But  desiring  the  correction  of  the  abuses  which  have  crept 
into  them,  and  by  occasion  of  which,  this  remarkable  name  of  indul- 
gences is  blasphemed  by  heretics,  should  be  amended  and  corrected,  it 
generally  enacts  by  the  present  decree :  that  all  wicked  gain,  for  obtain- 
ing them,  whence  great  cause  of  abuses  flowed  upon  the  Christian  people, 
should  be  altogether  taken  away.  But  as  to  the  other  evils,  which  have 
in  any  way  arisen  by  reason  of  superstition,  ignorance,  irreverence,  or 
otherwise  in  any  way  whatsoever:  since  because  of  the  many  corrupt 
practices  of  different  places  in  which  they  are  committed,  they  cannot 
be  all  specially  prohibited;  it  commands  all  bishops,  that  each  should 
diligently  seek  out  the  abuses  in  his  own  diocess,  collect  them,  and  relate 
them  in  the  first  provincial  synod,  so  that  the  opinion  of  other  bishops 
being  known,  they  may  be  immediately  referred  to  the  Pope,  by  whose 
authority  and  prudence,  that  might  be  enacted  which  would  be  expedient 
for  the  Universal  Church:  so  that  the  grace  of  holy  indulgences,  might 
be  dispensed  to  all  the  faithful,  in  a  pious,  holy,  and  uncorrupted  man- 
ner. ' ' 

Thus  has  the  Council  regulated,  and  thus  has  the  Church  executed. 

As  regards  Mosheim.  I  not  only  dispute  but  deny  his  authority, 
and  distinctly  aver  that  his  statements  are  not  correct.  In  describing 
the  treasure  he  omits  that  which  is  its  chief  ingredient,  viz.,  "the  super- 
abundance of  the  merits  of  Christ."  Such  is  but  a  specimen  of  his  dis- 
honesty. 

Your  correspondent  makes  a  serious  mistake  if  he  imagines  that  I 
shall  dissent  from  one  syllable  which  "the  amiable  and  ingenuous 
Fleury"  has  written  in  his  fourth  discourse  upon  the  subject  of  indul- 
gences. I  subscribe  to  the  entire.  I  only  regret  that  you  published 
an  unfair  and  a  garbled  extract.     Allow  me  to  make  a  few  remarks. 

"Indulgences"  form  the  sixteenth  topic  of  the  historian's  fourth 
discourse,  and  this  very  naturally  followed  the  fifteenth  which  related 
to  "the  change  of  Penance,"  where  "the  amiable  and  ingenuous 
Fleury"  pathetically  laments  the  abolition  of  public  and  of  severe  works 
of  satisfaction,  against  which  your   curious  correspondent  lamentably 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION        143 

declaimed;  so  that  here  Fleury  and  he  were  fully  opposed.  Although 
it  is  a  pretty  long  discussion,  still  I  shall  give  the  translation  of  a  por- 
tion to  show  what  Fleury  thought  of  indulgences,  and  to  exhibit  that 
his  meaning  is  misrepresented  by  the  garbled  extract  which  you  have 
published  as  a  specimen  of  his  sentiments. 

"It  is  true  that  the  multitude  of  indulgences,  and  the  facility  of  gaining  (grant- 
ing) them,  were  a  great  obstacle  to  the  zeal  of  the  more  enlightened  confessors.  It 
was  hard  to  persuade  to  fasting  and  discipline  a  sinner,  who  could  redeem  them  (buy 
it  off)  by  a  small  alms,  or  by  a  visit  to  a  church.  For  the  bishops  of  the  twelfth  and 
thirteenth  centuries  granted  indulgences  for  all  sorts  of  pious  works. ' ' 

Here  your  correspondent  stops,  as  usual,  at  a  comma,  in  an  unfin- 
ished sentence.  I  have  marked  in  italics,  where  my  translation  of  the 
word  gagner,  corrects  his  granting;  and  mine  for  les  racheter,  corrects 
his  huy  it  off.  But  I  suspect  the  object  of  his  stopping  was  to  leave  the 
impression  on  the  reader's  mind  that  the  money  paid  in  the  buying  off 
went  into  the  pocket  of  him  who  granted:  why  else  did  he  not  continue 
the  sentence  which  proceeds? — 

"Such  as  the  building  of  a  church,  the  endowment  of  an  hospital,  in  fine  every 
description  of  public  work,  a  bridge,  a  causeway,  the  paving  of  a  high  road.  The 
indulgences,  iu  truth,  were  nothing  more  than  a  part  of  the  penance;  but  if  many 
of  them  were  united,  the  entire  could  be  redeemed.  These  are  the  indulgences  which 
the  fourth  Council  of  Lateran  calls  indiscreet  and  superfluous,  which  bring  the  keys 
of  the  church  into  contempt,  and  enervate  the  satisfaction  of  penance.  To  prevent 
the  abuse,  it  ordains  that  for  the  dedication  of  a  church,  the  indulgence  shall  not  ex- 
ceed one  year,  even  though  many  bishops  should  be  present,  for  each  used  to  under- 
take to  give  his  own. ' ' 

I  apprehend  this  gives  a  different  sort  of  view  from  what  your 
curious  correspondent  intended,  and  it  is  neither  "amiable"  nor  "in- 
genuous" to  garble.  The  church  then  does  not  recommend,  nor  ap- 
prove, nor  sanction  even  such  disproportionate  indulgences,  but  calls 
them  abuses.  But  the  writer  generally  condemns  the  church  for  what 
she  herself  condemns,  and  imputes  to  her  what  she  disclaims,  and  makes 
her  own  writers  appear  to  testify  against  her,  by  garbling  their  works. 
It  is  also  clear  that  the  money  did  not  go  to  the  person  granting  the 
indulgence,  but  for  the  public  good.  I  apprehend,  however,  that  such 
indulgences  would  neither  spoil  our  roads,  nor  destroy  our  bridges,  nor 
starve  our  poor,  nor  increase  our  taxes. 

Fleury  then  adduces  the  reasoning  of  William,  Bishop  of  Paris, 
in  vindication  of  the  practice  of  the  indulgence,  being  more  to  the 
honour  of  God,  the  public  benefit,  and  the  salvation  of  souls  than  the 
infliction  of  heavy  satisfaction  of  penance.  Fleury,  whilst  he  upholds 
the  doctrine  of  the  church  on  each  point,  differs  in  his  view  of  expedi- 
ency from  the  bishop,  and  after  a  considerable  discussion  adduces  the 


144  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

example  in  the  essay,  the  whole  of  which,  however,  your  correspondent 
does  not  give,  and  after  the  phrase  "The  application  is  easy  (obvious)  "; 
he  then  makes  that  application  in  the  following  manner. 

''We  must  then  go  back  to  the  maxim  of  St.  Paul,  that  everything  which  is  per- 
mitted is  not  expedient.  Because  this  prince  who  would  pardon  the  guilty  would 
only  do  as  he  had  a  right  to  do,  for  I  suppose  him  a  sovereign;  but  he  would  use  his 
right  indiscreetly.  So  with  indulgences.  No  Catholic  doubts  but  that  the  Church 
can  grant  them:  nor  that  she  ought  to  do  in  certain  cases,  what  she  has  always  done: 
but  it  is  the  duty  of  her  ministers  to  dispense  these  favours  with  wisdom,  and  not  to 
create  a  useless  profusion,  or  perhaps  a  pernicious  one. ' ' 

Your  notably  candid  correspondent,  however,  instead  of  giving  us 
Fleury's  explanation  and  application,  flies  off  from  his  fourth  discourse 
which  he  quotes,  and  adds  a  passage  of  his  sixth,  which  is  also  distorted 
by  its  unnatural  juxtaposition  with  what  the  author  never  intended  to 
place  it  near.  In  his  sixth  discourse  he  treats  of  the  Crusade,  which 
your  correspondent  calls  by  some  very  ugly  names,  concerning  the  pro- 
priety of  which  I  shall  not  now  dispute.  Another  time  perhaps,  and  a 
more  fit  occasion,  might  induce  me  to  give  my  reasons  for  differing  very 
widely  wnth  him  upon  this  subject.  But  even  this  passage  he  garbled 
also.  Fleury  begins  his  paragraph  by  stating  that  it  was  not  Pope 
Urban  alone,  but  the  council  of  two  hundred  bishops  assembled  at  Cler- 
mont, that  for  reasons  previously  assigned,  looked  upon  it  as  the  will  of 
God  that  the  expedition  should  be  undertaken,  and  then  continues: 

' '  To  carry  it  into  execution,  and  to  put  the  people  in  motion,  the  great  resource 
was  a  plenary  indulgence;  and  it  was  then  that- this  commenced.  At  all  times,  the 
church  had  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  bishops,  to  remit  some  part  of  the  canonical 
penance,  according  to  the  fervour  of  the  penitent,  and  other  circumstances;  but  until 
now  it  had  not  been  seen,  that  in  favour  of  one  single  work  the  sinner  was  discharged 
from  all  the  temporal  punishment  for  which  he  might  be  amenable  to  the  justice  of 
God.  It  required  no  less  than  a  numerous  council,  at  which  the  Pope  presided  in 
person  to  authorize  such  a  change  in  the  usage  of  penance;  and  doubtless  it  is  be- 
lieved that  there  existed  good  reasons  for  it.  For  more  than  two  hundred  years,  the 
bishops  had  found  it  very  difficult  to  bring  sinners  to  submit  to  the  canonical  pen- 
ances: it  had  been  even  made  impracticable  by  multiplying  them  according  to  the 
number  of  sins,  whence  arose  the  invention  of  commuting  them,  so  as  to  redeem  entire 
(buy  off  many)  years,  in  a  few  days.  Because  amongst  the  commutations  of  pen- 
ance, for  a  long  time  were  used,  pilgrimages  to  Rome,  to  Compostella,  or  to  Jerusalem ; 
and  the  Crusade  added  to  these  the  perils  of  war.  Persons,  upon  this  ground,  be- 
lieved that  this  penance  was  equivalent  to  the  fasting,  the  prayers,  and  the  alms  which 
each  penitent  might  in  particular  offer,  and  that  it  would  be  more  useful  to  the  church, 
without  being  less  agreeable  to  God. ' ' 

Such  is  Fleury's  paragraph  in  which  he  does  not  assert  that  it  was 
then  for  the  first  time  a  plenary  indulgence  was  given;  but  that  then 
was  the  first  time  that  it  was  granted  for  the  performance  of  one  single 
work.     In  his  fourth  discourse  he  had,  as  we  see,  stated,  that  "if  many 


tAvo        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION        145 

[works]  were  united,  the  entire  [canonical  penance]  could  be  redeemed. " 
And  in  the  very  earliest  ages,  instances  are  found  of  the  full  remission. 
Fleury  states  also  the  remedies  applied  not  only  by  the  Council  of  Trent, 
but  also  by  previous  councils,  and  mentions  them  with  approbation. 

Your  correspondent  then,  instead  of  taking  up  either  of  the  propo- 
sitions which  he  undertook  to  confute,  has  garbled  Fleury,  quoted  ]\Ios- 
heim,  and  concluded  wnth  a  notorious  falsehood,  "That  indulgences  are 
still  to  be  had  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  under  the  authority  and 
at  the  discretion,  in  general  of  the  Pope  for  money  applicable  to  the 
usages  of  the  Church." 

It  is  no  argviment,  it  is  no  proof,  to  write,  "Will  any  pretend  to 
question  this?"  when  we  not  only  question  but  deny  its  truth.  "Can 
it  be  unknown  to  any  ? "  is  no  proof,  when  it  is  denied  that  it  is  known 
to  any.  I  do  as  firmly  and  as  determinedly  and  as  plainly,  deny  that 
at  the  present  day  "indulgences  are  to  be  had  in  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  for  money  applicable  to  the  uses  of  the  Church,"  as  I  assert 
that  I  have  proved  your  correspondent  to  be  guilty  of  garbling,  misrep- 
resentation, and  dishonesty.  I  am  aware  that  the  assertion  is  made :  but 
to  make  an  assertion  is  not  to  prove  its  truth.  I  have  the  authority  of 
the  Bishop  of  Charleston  to  make  the  following  statements  upon  his 
responsibility  for  their  truth.  That  he  has  received  from  very  highly 
respectable  witnesses,  the  names  of  some  persons  belonging  to  ancient 
and  wealthy  families  in  this  state,  who  solemnly  declared  upon  their 
honour  that  they  read  upon  the  doors  of  the  cathedral  notices  from  him 
of  the  sale  of  indulgences;  and  yet  that  he  never  did  give  any  such 
notice,  and  that  no  publication  had  even  to  his  knowledge  or  suspicion 
been  ever  so  exhibited  as  to  give  any  pretext  for  such  a  charge  upon 
him.  Number  236  of  the  Miscellany,  published  on  the  5th  of  July, 
1828,  contains  some  documents  regarding  one  of  those  calumnies.  Look 
to  that,  and  say  what  remedy  could  be  applied  if  the  person  who  was 
capable  of  publishing  this  of  the  Church  of  Charleston,  should,  after  re- 
turning from  a  European  tour,  report  the  occurrence  of  a  church  in  Italy  ? 

The  Bishop  also  authorizes  me  to  state  that  the  indulgence  men- 
tioned in  paragraph  46,  is  one  of  which  he  has  full  and  intimate  knowl- 
edge. He  was  at  the  period  alluded  to.  Secretary  to  the  Diocess  of  Cork, 
and  the  present  Bishop  of  Cork  was  then  its  Archdeacon ;  the  execution 
was  committed  to  the  archdeacon,  and  secretary,  by  the  then  Bishop  of 
Cork.  The  pastoral  letter  was  drafted  by  the  secretary,  and  all  the 
details  of  the  exercises  were  superintended  by  him,  and  not  one  cent  of 
money  was  looked  for,  upon  any  pretext  whatever,  save  the  usual  col- 
lections applicable  to  the  usual  purposes,  except  one  extra  collection 


146  DOCTRINE  Vol. 


which  he  made  by  his  own  authority,  to  relieve  the  family  of  a  poor  man 
who  was  crushed  to  death  in  the  crowd,  leaving  his  family,  consisting 
of  a  wife  and  seven  children,  totally  destitute.  But  so  far  as  the  spir- 
itual benefits  of  the  indulgence  exhibited  themselves  in  fervent  and 
renewed  piety,  in  the  restitution  of  property  dishonestly  acquired,  in 
the  oblivion  of  ancient  and  inveterate  enmities,  in  the  sedulous  attention 
to  prayer  and  instruction,  he  never  did,  and  probably  never  will,  wit- 
ness a  more  gratifying  and  edifying  scene  than  continued  at  that  time, 
during  four  successive  weeks.  Nor  was  there  found  in  the  city,  as  far 
as  he  could  discover,  a  single  Protestant  who  did  not  proclaim,  that  if 
the  Catholic  religion  always  exhibited  itself  in  such  a  manner,  no  one 
could  resist  its  influence.  Such,  gentlemen,  is  the  testimony  of  Dr. 
England.  Upon  what  then  does  your  correspondent  found  his  assertion, 
that  indulgences  might  now  be  had  for  money  ? 

In  paragraph  44,  your  correspondent  introduces,  "in  relation  to 
the  prayers  for  the  dead  in  purgatory  as  well  as  indulgences,"  a  pas- 
sage from  Daubney's  Protestant  Companion.  But  "the  respectable 
author  of  our  own  times, ' '  has  really  made  a  very  curious  exhibition  of 
himself.  Were  I  not  to  know  from  other  sources  the  meaning  of  the 
notice  which  he  saw,  and  attempts  to  translate,  I  could  never  make  out 
from  his  exhibition  what  it  meant:  for  the  translator  not  knowing  the 
language  of  the  country,  or  phraseology,  or  facts,  or  doctrine  of  our 
church,  made  perfect  nonsense  of  the  entire.  There  is  no  such  phrase 
as  "receiving  the  prayers  of  a  mass,"  intelligible  amongst  us:  and  you 
may  go  through  half  Christendom  asking  how  a  man  "could  receive 
two  Cantatas,"  or  "the  prayers  of  two  Cantatas,"  before  you  could 
get  any  Catholic  to  suspect  what  you  meant,  or  to  look  upon  you  to  be 
in  your  sound  senses. 

The  entire  notice  in  plain  English  amounts  to  nothing  more  than 
the  following.  That  this  was  not  a  public  church  of  a  parish,  but  one 
maintained  by  a  private  subscription,  the  clergy  who  officiated  in  which 
were  supported  out  of  the  contributions  of  the  benefactors:  and  that 
the  sum  required  for  such  support,  was  regulated  at  certain  rates  for 
the  various  duties,  so  that  persons  desirous  of  having  the  benefit  of  the 
services  therein  performed,  must  contribute  accordingly,  either  monthly, 
or  as  life  members,  and  that  the  benefactors  would  also  be  specially 
prayed  for  and  remembered  in  the  services  after  their  death,  with  a 
recommendation  to  persons  rather  to  join  the  society  of  that  church, 
than  to  depend  upon  the  casual  affection  of  surviving  relations. 

Paragraph  45  regards  an  indulgence,  but  for  what?  For  money? 
No.     For  repentance  for  sins,  confessing,  going  to  communion,  and  pray- 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION        147 

ing — ^Yes,  such  is  our  doctrine,  that  in  consideration  of  those  acts  of 
virtue,  God  will,  through  the  merits  of  Jesus  Christ,  not  only  remove 
the  guilt,  and  the  eternal  punishment,  but  also  the  temporal  punishment 
which  might  remain  due  to  the  repentant  sinner.  But  the  nonsense  of 
the  translation  in  the  previous  paragraph  is  really  common  sense  when 
compared  to  the  multiplied  blunders  of  this.  Surely  it  was  not  Barretti 
that  taught  ''this  respectable  author  of  our  own  times"  to  translate 
Quarante  "forty-eight."  I  profess  myself  completely  unable  even  to 
guess  at  what  is  meant  by  "his  professed  confession  being  confirmed." 
I  know  the  foundation  of  the  ridiculous  blunder  of  "acquire  ten  years," 
but  the  superlative  ignorance  of  the  "respectable  author  of  our  own 
times,"  who  gives  "moreover  forty  indulgences  for  each  time,"  would 
be  really  capping  the  climax,  but  that  "the  Breviary  of  Paul  the  Fifth" 
places  a  pinnacle  even  above  the  cap.  Do, — good  gentlemen,  for  mercy 
sake,  tell  your  correspondents  to  take  up  our  American  prayer-books, 
and  save  our  country  at  least,  the  disgrace  of  those  exhibitions  of  the 
lowest  ignorance.  Those  expressions  are  downright  nonsense:  you  can 
if  you  will,  find  in  several  of  our  churches  in  Maryland  and  Kentucky, 
I  believe  also  in  Louisiana  and  Missouri,  that  this  "devotion  of  the  forty 
hours"  is  practised  and  understood  as  well  as  it  is  in  Rome.  We  will 
ourselves  give  you  our  books  and  explain  our  doctrine  and  practices, 
upon  your  application,  and  then  when  you  assail  us,  you  will  do  so  with- 
out making  yourselves  ridiculous. 

In  paragraph  47,  your  correspondent  founds  his  conclusion  upon  a 
false  assumption,  that  "the  confessing  penitent  may  buy  himself  off 
from  the  necessity  of  that  which  is  imposed  to  satisfy  the  divine  justice," 
hence  the  conclusion  that  "it  operates  as  a  license  to  commit  sin,"  is  not 
true.  But  surely  "the  gratuitous  discharge"  will  so  operate.  Be  it 
so,  good  gentlemen !  What  then  shall  we  say  to  you  who  have  granted 
a  total  and  a  gratuitous  discharge?  You  say  that  Jesus  Christ  has 
granted  to  the  repentant  sinner,  a  total  and  gratuitous  discharge  for  all 
satisfaction  to  the  divine  justice.  We  say  he  does  not  always  grant  a 
total  discharge,  but  that  generally  he  substitutes  a  temporal  for  the 
eternal  punishment,  and  that  sometimes,  he  afterwards,  in  considera- 
tion of  some  acts  of  virtue,  remits  the  temporal  punishment  also.  Which 
is  more  like  "a  license  to  commit  sin?" 

Recollect,  gentlemen,  that  not  even  an  attempt  was  made  to  prove 
a  single  allegation  of  mine  respecting  indulgences  to  be  incorrect.  The 
whole  of  your  charges  are  day-dreams  of  fancy. 

I  remain,  gentlemen. 

Your  obedient,  humble  servant,  b.  c. 


148  DOCTRINE  Vol. 


LETTER  XVI. 

So  saying,  with  extended  wings, 

Lightly  upon  the  wave  she  springs; 

Her  wisdom  swells,  she  spreads  her  plumes, 

And  the  swan's  stately  crest  assumes. 

Contempt  and  mockery  ensued, 

And  bursts  of  laughter  shook  the  flood. 

Moore's  Fables. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Sept.  14,  1829. 
To  the  Editors: 

Gentlemen: — I  am  now  arrived  at  the  fifth  essay  in  your  number 
for  June.  The  object  of  your  curious  correspondent  was  stated  by  him 
not  to  be  controversy,  but  to  show  that  what  I  called  misrepresentations 
were  not  so.  In  this  essay  as  in  the  previous  one,  he  seems  altogether 
to  lose  sight  of  his  professed  purpose,  for  he  is  quite  controversial,  and 
somewhat  facetious.  His  wit  sparkles  in  his  forty-ninth  paragraph; 
and  the  exhibition  has  been  so  rarely  and  so  modestly  made  that  it  would 
be  cruel  to  sport  with  it.  Should  I  tell  him  that  the  passage,  which  at 
the  close  of  that  paragraph  he  quotes  from  Bellarmine,  Praef.  de  Rom. 
Pont.,  is  not  a  translation  of  Bellarmine 's  words,  though  crotcheted  as 
such,  the  glittering  arrows  of  his  satire  would  dazzle  the  beholders  and 
terrify  me  his  unfortunate  victim;  yet  it  is  true  that  Bellarmine 's  words 
are  not  accurately  represented  in  the  translation. 

But  what  shall  I  say  to  the  note  which  purports  to  be  an  extract 
from  A  Pastoral  Instruction  of  Archbishop  Troy,  the  late  Primate  of 
Ireland?  Surely  it  is  blasphemy  for  him  to  mention  the  celestial 
primacy  of  the  Pope!  I  shall  only  insinuate  that  it  would  have  been 
more  satisfactory,  if  instead  of  referring  us  to  a  pastoral,  we  had  been 
directed  to  the  particular  one  which  contained  the  passage.  I  shall, 
however,  again  refer  to  the  testimony  of  the  Bishop  of  Charleston,  who 
authorizes  me  to  state:  ''that  he  was  during  some  years  well  acquainted 
with  Archbishop  Troy,  and  was  frequently  in  his  company;  that  his 
impression  is  that  he  was  the  last  Irish  prelate  whose  hospitality  he 
experienced,  and  with  whom  he  had  much  intercourse  during  the  last 
week  of  his  being  in  Ireland;  that  he  thinks  he  read  every  pastoral 
instruction  issued  by  that  prelate;  that  he  is  confident  no  one  that  he 
ever  read  contained  such  an  expression  as  that  put  forward  in  the  note ; 
that  from  his  knowledge  of  the  deceased  Irish  primate,  he  is  perfectly 
certain,  that  he  never  did,  nor  would  use  such  an  expression,  and  is  quite 
convinced  that  the  word  celestial  has  been  substituted  for  ecclesiastical, 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION        149 


which  is  the  appropriate  and  usual  expression,  and  the  very  word  which 
in  a  variety  of  similar  cases  he  has  known  the  Archbishop  to  have  used. 
It  is  true  that  such  evidence  as  this  would  not  procure  a  conviction  for 
forgery  in  a  court  of  justice,  nor  do  I  assert  that  it  is  a  celestial  forgery, 
but  I  leave  to  my  readers  to  think  what  they  [please]. 

The  paragraphs  50,  51,  and  52,  are  all  very  extraordinary  negative 
arguments  to  disprove  the  primacy  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome.     I  have  given 
some  time  since,  six  letters,  containing  positive  proofs  to  the  contrary. 
Whoever  wishes  to  read  them  can,  if  he  will,  compare  the  negative  and 
the  positive  arguments,  and  draw  his  own  conclusions;  I  shall  not  go 
into  the  controversy  upon  this  point  at  present.     However,  it  is  very 
curious,  if  Bishop  Hobart  never  was  aware  of  the  usual  practice  in 
judicial  assemblies,  that  the  first  who  delivers  his  opinion  is  not  the 
president  of  the  court.     And  it  is  also  begging  the  question  to  assume 
that  St.  Ignatius  "delineated  with  the  greatest  minuteness  the  Christian 
hierarchy."     And  it  is  an  evidence  of  a  want  of  acquaintance  with  our 
doctrine  to  impute  to  us  even  by  implication  that  we  consider  the  papal 
office  to  constitute  a  separate  hierarchical  order.     The  writer  would  have 
done  better  had  he  informed  us  who  was  "the  corrupt  hand  of  secular 
power"  that  gave  to  the  Bishop  of  the  imperial  city  "the  title  and  pre- 
rogatives of  Universal  Bishop,"  than  so  boldly  to  assume  as  fact,  that 
which  we  assert  is  a  fable.     It  would  have  argued  a  little  more  knowl- 
edge of  Church  history  in  Bishop  Hobart,  than  he  appears  to  possess, 
had  he  not  fallen  into  the  glaring  inconsistency  of  adducing  the  rebuke 
to  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  by  the  Pope,  for  his  assuming  the  title 
of  Oecumenical  Bishop  as  proof  that  the  title  itself  was  usurped  by 
Rome:  for  he  ought  to  have  known  that  in  this  case  Rome  rebuked, 
because  it  possessed  authority,  and  Constantinople  submitted  because  of 
its  want.     That  Protestants  never  admitted  the  sufficiency  of  the  evi- 
dence is  no  better  argument  against  its  sufficiency,  than  is  the  non- 
admission  by  Presbyterians,  of  the  sufficiency  of  evidence  of  the  Divine 
institution  of  Episcopacy,  a  warrant  for  denying  that  such  institution  is 
divine.     Is  Jesus  Christ  to  be  changed  in  his  nature,  because  the  Uni- 
tarian does  not  admit  the  sufficiency  of  the  evidence  that  he  is  the 
Eternal  God?     Will  the  dissent  of  a  minority  destroy  the  force  of  that 
evidence  upon  which  the  majority  rest  their  conviction?     Dr.  Barrow's 
essay  is  but  an  extension  of  the  topics  urged  by  every  one  who  has  taken 
the  same  side,  and  they  have  been  often  and  fully  met  before:  many 
candid  inquirers,  to  my  own  knowledge,  after  full  and  deep  examination 
of  the  topics  urged  by  him,  have  been  convinced  of  their  insufficiency, 


150  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

and  upon  that  conviction,  deliberately  came  back  to  that  Christian  unity 
from  which  their  forefathers  had  been  led  away. 

In  his  paragraph  53,  under  the  semblance  of  a  concession,  he  in- 
creases the  previous  misrepresentation.  In  my  second  letter  to  Bishop 
Bowen,  I  stated  that  the  following  proposition  was  untrue,  viz. : — 

"Koman  Catholics  found  their  doctrine,  that  the  Scriptures,  though  being  the 
word  of  God,  are  not  the  entire  rule  of  faith,  except  as  explained  by  their  unwritten 
traditions,  and  the  authority  of  their  Church,  on  the  pretended  infallibility  of  their 
Church. ' ' 

He  does  not  attempt  to  prove  the  truth  of  the  proposition,  but  he 
asserts  that  "the  Scriptures  are  according  to  the  Roman  Catholic  doc- 
trine only  one  half,  and  that  not  the  most  important  half  of  the  word  of 
God?"  It  is  not  because  of  his  incorrect  most,  nor  because  of  his  only 
one  half;  how  exactly  he  measured!  but  because  of  the  whole  scope  of 
this  assertion  that  I  now  state  it  to  be  a  misrepresentation  of  our  doc- 
trine :  and  his  next  two  propositions  are  equally  untrue  viz. :  ' '  The  tra- 
ditions that  explain  them  [the  Scriptures]  remain  the  more  important 
part  of  divine  revelation,"  "and  in  this  lies  the  difference  between 
Roman  Catholics  and  Protestants  upon  this  subject."  I  shall  not  enter 
into  any  examination  of  the  correctness  or  incorrectness  of  your  mode, 
or  of  your  contrast:  but  your  correspondent  has  here  been  guilty  of 
misrepresenting  our  doctrine,  as  also  in  this  other  proposition  in  the 
same  paragraph.  Catholics  "make  the  traditions,  which  while  they  ex- 
plain and  illustrate  them  (the  Scriptures)  are  the  depository  of  other 
and  more  important  revelations  than  they  contain  equally  with  them, 
their  divinely  given  rule  of  faith  and  practice. ' '  Now  his  misrepresenta- 
tions are  first,  the  assertion  "that  we  believe  tradition  to  be  the  mode 
by  which  we  learn  more  important  doctrines  than  are  contained  in  the 
Scriptures."  Secondly,  "that  by  it  we  learn  as  many  doctrines  as  are 
revealed  in  the  Scriptures,"  and  thirdly,  in  the  equivocation  respecting 
the  word  unwritten,  which  he  exhibits  as  meaning  "not  committed  to 
writing,"  but  which  in  our  authors  whom  he  quotes  is  always  under- 
stood to  mean  "not  written  in  the  Bible"  though  it  might  be  written 
elsewhere,  for  instance  in  the  works  of  the  ancient  Doctors  of  the  Church, 
and  so  forth.  I  had  intended  to  pass  over  this  without  farther  remark, 
until  I  recollected  the  playful  manner  in  which  a  former  distinction 
was  disposed  of,  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  which,  it  is  possible  that 
celestial  was  substituted  for  ecclesiastical:  you  will  therefore  excuse  me 
if  I  now  show  glaring  misrepresentation  by  a  more  detailed  reference. 
That  your  correspondent  alleges  our  traditions  to  be  not  written  as  con- 
tradistinguished to  written  in  any  book,  and  not  merely  in  the  Holy 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION        151 

Scriptures,  is  apparent  from  his  calling  them  oral  in  paragraph  53,  in 
his  first  and  fourth  reasons  for  the  dissent  of  Protestants.  He  thus 
represents  us,  as  raising  mere  oral  tradition  to  a  higher  rank  than  the 
Scriptures.  Yet  this  man  quotes  Bellarmine,  and  takes  passages  as  from 
the  very  chapter  in  which  the  contrary  is  found.  That  author  in  his 
lib.  iv.  cap.  1,  has  the  following  passage  to  explain  his  meaning  of 
unwritten  word  of  God. 

Vacatur  autem  doctrina  non  scripta,  non  ea  quae  nusquam  scripta  est,  sed  quae 
non  est  scripta  a  primo  auctore:  exemplo  sit  haptismus  parvulorum.  Parvulos  hap- 
tizandos  vacatur  traditio  Apostolica  non  scripta,  quia  non  invenitur  hoc  scriptum  in 
ullo  Apostolico  libro,  tametsi  scriptum  est  in  libris  fere  omnius  veterum  patrum. 

"That  is  called  unwritten  doctrine,  not  which  is  nowhere  found  written,  but 
which  is  not  found  written  by  an  original  author:  for  example  the  baptism  of  in- 
fants. That  infants  are  to  be  baptized  is  called  an  unwritten  Apostolical  tradition, 
because  this  is  not  found  written  in  any  Apostolical  book,  although  it  is  written  in 
the  books  of  almost  all  the  ancient  fathers." 

In  his  twelfth  chapter  of  the  same  book  from  which  your  correspon- 
dent affects  to  quote  his  passage,  the  following  is  found,  as  the  first  of 
the  modes  by  which  tradition  is  preserved. 

Prima  est  scriptura.  Etsi  enim  non  sint  scriptae  traditiones  in  divine  litteris, 
sunt  tamen  scriptae  in  monumentis  veterum,  et  in  libris  ecclesiasticis. 

"The  first  is  writing.  For  although  the  traditions  be  not  written  in  the  divine 
books,  yet  they  are  written  in  the  monuments  (records)  of  the  ancients,  and  in 
ecclesiastical  books. ' ' 

I  hope  he  will  not  assert  that  I  wrote  "celestial  books." 

It  is  now  plain,  that  by  "written  tradition"  we  do  not  mean  "mere 
oral  tradition." 

It  is  to  me  truly  painful  to  be  perpetually  obliged  to  show  how 
unfaithful,  and  little  worthy  of  confidence  is  "Protestant  Catholic." 
He  places  together  a  passage  of  Bellarmine  from  the  second  and  one 
from  the  twelfth  chapter  of  his  fourth  book,  and  does  not  give  the  latter 
entire.  That  from  the  second  chapter  is  the  first  sentence  which  is 
fully  and  correctly  translated.  That  from  the  twelfth  chapter  is  the 
following. 

Totalis  enim  re.gula  fidei,  est  verbum  Dei,  sive  revelatio  Dei  Ecclesiae  facta, 
quae  dividitur  in  duas  regulas  partiales,  scripturam  et  traditionem.  Et  quidem  Scrip- 
tura, quia  est  regula,  inde  habet,  ut  quidquid  continet  sit  necessario  verum  et  creden- 
dum,  et  quidquid  ei  repugnat,  sit  necessario  falsum  et  repudiandum:  quia  vero, 
non  est  regula  totalis  sed  partialis;  inde  illi  accidit  ut  non  omnia  mensuret,  et  prop- 
terea  aliquid  sit  de  fide,  quod  non  in  ipsa  continetur.  Et  hoc  modo  intelligi  debeant 
verba  S.  Augustini,  nusquam  enim  dicit  Scripturam  solan  esse  regulam,  sed  dicit 
Scripturam  esse  regulam,  ad  quam  examinari  debent  scripta  patrum,  ut  ea  recipiamus, 
quae  Scripturae  stmt  consona;  ilia  rejiciamus  quae  Scripturae  adversantur. 

"For  the  total  rule  of  faith  is  the  word  of  God,  or  his  revelation  to  his  church; 
which  is  divided  into  two  partial  rules,  scripture  and  tradition.     And  indeed  Scripture 


152  DOCTRINE  Vol. 


because  it  is  a  rule  has  this  property,  that  whatsoever  it  contains  is  necessarily  true 
and  ought  to  be  believed;  and  whatsoever  is  repugnant  thereto  must  necessarily  be 
false,  and  should  be  rejected:  but  because  it  is  not  a  total  but  a  partial  rule  it  is  a 
consequence  that  it  does  not  measure  all  things,  and  therefore  something  might  be  of 
faith  which  is  not  contained  therein.  And  in  this  manner  should  the  words  of  St. 
Augustine  be  understood,  for  he  nowhere  says,  that  the  Scripture  is  the  sole  rule; 
but  he  does  say  that  the  Scripture  is  a  rule  by  which  the  writings  of  the  fathers  ought 
to  be  examined,  that  we  might  receive  those  which  are  consonant  to  the  Scripture; 
and  reject  those  which  are  adverse  to  Scripture." 

I  acknowledge  that  Bossuet  and  Bellarmine  agree.  Perhaps  the 
better  mode  of  meeting  your  assertion  respecting  the  Council  of  Trent 
will  be  to  state  in  the  very  words  of  the  decree  itself,  what  those  tra- 
ditions are,  concerning  which  the  decree  was  made;  they  are  found  in 
the  decree  Concerning  the  Canonical  Scriptures,  passed  April  8th,  1546, 
and  are  thus  described: 

Hoc  siU  perpetuo  ante  oculos  ponens.  Ut  suhlatis  erroribus  puritas  ipsa  Evan- 
gelii  in  Ecdesia  conservetur,  quod  promissum  ante  per  prophetas  in  scripturis  Sanctis, 
Dominus  noster  Jesus  Christus  Dei  filius,  propria  ore  primum  promulgavit;  deinde 
per  sues  Apostolos,  tanquam  fontem  omnis  salutaris  veritatis,  et  morum  disciplinae, 
omni  creaturae  praedicari  jussit;  perspiciensque  hanc  veritatem,  et  disciplinam  con- 
tineri  in  libris  scriptis,  et  sine  scripto  traditionihus,  quae  ipsius  Christi  ore  db  Apos- 
tolis  acceptae,  aut  ab  ipsis  Apostolis,  Spiritu  Sancto  dictante,  quasi  per  manus  tra- 
ditae,  ad  nos  usque  pervenerunt,  orthodoxorum  Patrum  exempla  secuta,  omnes  libros 
tarn  veteris,  quam  novi  testamenti,  cum  utriusque  unus  Deus  sit  auctor,  nee  non  tradi- 
tiones  ipsas,  turn  ad  fidem,  turn  ad  mores  pertinentes,  tamquam  vel  ore  tenus  a  Christo, 
vel  a  Spiritu  Sancto  dictitatas,  et  continua  successions  in  Ecdesia  Catholica  conser- 
vatas,  pari  pietatis  affectu,  ac  reverentia  suscipit,  et  veneratur. 

"Continually  having  in  view,  that  errors  being  removed,  the  very  truth  of  the 
Gospel  might  be  preserved  in  the  church:  that  which  was  before  promised  by  the 
Prophets  in  the  sacred  Scriptures,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  son  of  God,  first  pro- 
mulgated with  his  own  mouth ;  then  ordered  it  to  be  preached  to  every  creature  by  his 
Apostles,  as  the  fountain  of  all,  both  saving  truth  and  discipline  of  morals:  and  (the 
synod)  seeing  that  this  truth  and  discipline  is  contained  in  written  books,  and  in  un- 
written traditions,  which  having  been  received  by  the  Apostles  from  the  mouth  of 
Christ  himself,  or  from  the  Apostles  at  the  dictation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  have  come 
to  us  as  if  delivered  by  hands,  following  the  examples  of  the  orthodox  fathers,  re- 
ceives and  venerates  with  equal  affection  and  reverence,  all  the  books  as  well  of  the 
Old  as  of  the  New  Testament,  since  the  one  God  is  the  author  of  both,  as  well  as  of 
the  traditions  themselves,  as  well  belonging  to  faith  as  to  morals,  as  either  received 
from  the  mouth  of  Christ,  or  dictated  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  preserved  by  continual 
succession  in  the  Catholic  Church." 

In  this  your  correspondent  copies  Father  Paul  word  for  word, 
and  it  is  one  of  his  most  correct  statements.  It  is  clear,  then,  that  the 
traditions  are  not  w^hat  he  calls  oral,  nor  are  they  any  other  but  such 
as  by  the  evidence  of  the  whole  church  have  been  derived  from  the 
mouth  of  Christ  or  of  his  Apostles. 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION        153 

He  vouchsafes  to  quote  even  me,  after  those  high  authorities,  to 
prove  from  my  statement  "that  the  principal  revelations  of  the  Saviour" 
having  been  made  at  a  time  of  which  we  have  no  scriptural  record  of 
the  revelation  that  was  made,  I  must  have  said  that  such  communications 
were  more  important  than  any  delivered  to  the  churches  by  the  Apostles 
in  their  Epistles, — and  thus  he  might  justify  his  previous  assertion  in 
the  same  paragraph.  "The  Scriptures,  according  to  Roman  Catholic 
doctrine,  are  only  half,  and  that  not  the  most  important  half,  of  the 
word  of  God."  Now  the  word  principal  is  equally  susceptible  of  the 
meaning  which  I  intended  to  convey,  "numerous,"  as  that  which  he 
attached  to  it,  "important."  But  probably  both  meanings  might  be 
sustained  by  verse  3,  of  chapter  i.  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  as  well 
as  by  John  xvi.  12,  13;  xiv.  25,  26,  30;  xxi.  25. 

I  shall  not  here  controvert  his  arguments :  I  shall  merely  correct 
his  misstatements.  His  first  reason  for  not  concurring  with  us,  assumes 
against  the  fact  that  those  traditions  are  oral,  not  written :  and  that  we 
assert  what  is  hot  written  to  be  more  important,  what  is  written  to  be 
less  important. — All  which  is  untrue. 

His  second  reason  improperly  shifts  the  ground.  We  do  not  state 
that  the  Apostles  "did  not  think  it  good  or  expedient  publicly  to  impart 
to  the  disciples"  articles  of  belief  of  which  they  had  the  knowledge 
amongst  themselves.  But  we  do  state,  our  having  evidence  that  they 
did  teach  doctrines  and  institute  practices,  necessary  for  faith  and 
morals,  concerning  which  they  never  wrote  documents  that  have  reached 
us,  or  been  publicly  known  in  the  church  as  theirs,  and  we  do  find  in 
their  wi'itings  allusions  and  references  to  unwritten  teaching.  One  or 
two  passages  will  suffice  for  present  reference.  (7  Cor  .xi.  2 ;  II  Thess. 
ii.  15.) 

His  third  begs  the  question. 

His  fourth  assumes  a  false  basis,  oral. 

His  fifth  is  extremely  unfortunate  in  its  specifications.  The  mil- 
lenarian  error  was  founded  upon  Revelations  xx.  2,  3,  4,  5,  and  other 
texts.  It  is  a  little  strange,  good  gentlemen,  that  your  correspondent 
does  not  seem  to  be  aware  that  Luther  and  Calvin,  and  several  of  their 
followers,  produced  many  texts  of  Scripture  upon  which  they  contended 
against  Catholics,  that  the  saints  would  not  see  God  until  the  resurrec- 
tion. The  necessity  of  giving  the  Eucharist  to  children  was  sustained 
upon  the  text  of  John  vi.  53,  54,  and  others. 

His  sixth  reason  consists  of  two  parts :  the  first  is  neither  contro- 
verted by  me,  nor  sufficient  for  his  purpose;  the  second  part  is  untrue 
in  fact,  as  might  be  easily  shown  in  several  instances. 


154  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

His  last  reason,  as  applied  to  doctrine,  is  altogether  untrue, — let 
him  show  the  particulars. 

Upon  his  quotation  from  Bishop  AVhite,  I  shall  make  but  a  passing 
observation,  that  if  I  admit  his  principle  in  the  concluding  remark,  it 
will  establish  all  for  which  I  care  to  contend.  I  believe  the  legislature 
and  courts  of  any  civilized  nation  to  be  fully  competent,  not  only  to 
declare  that  the  statutes  and  usages  which  are  by  them  recognised  as 
law  are  the  law ;  but  I  believe  that  it  is  only  by  their  authority  they  are 
known  to  be  such.  And  this  was  the  sense  of  St.  Augustine,  when  he 
declared  that  he  would  not  believe  in  the  Gospel,  but  upon  the  authority 
of  the  church;  that  it  is  perfectly  reasonable,  is  plain  from  the  fact, 
that  the  church  pre-existed  to  the  Gospel,  and  that  she  taught  her  doc- 
trines before  the  Gospel  was  written,  and  that  it  was  only  by  her  testi- 
mony, the  fact  of  their  inspiration  and  divine  authority  has  been  estab- 
lished. Her  public  tribunals  give  this  testimony  not  only  to  the  written 
Gospel,  but  to  more  than  is  written  in  the  Gospel.  I  believe  with  Bishop 
White,  that  there  is  no  species  of  evidence  more  generally  acted  on,  or 
less  liable  to  be  deceptive. 

My  complaint  against  the  Catechism  and  against  your  correspon- 
dent is,  for  having  misrepresented  what  we  mean  by  tradition ;  and  for 
having  misrepresented  us  in  the  attempt  to  show  that  we  preferred  it  to 
the  Scriptures. 

I  shall  add  one  remark  upon  his  note.  He  says  that  "there  is  no 
need  of  considering  tradition  to  be  kept  right  amongst  the  great  body 
of  the  faithful  by  an  extraordinary  divine  influence  over  the  mind." — 
My  answer  is,  if  God  promised  to  preserve  the  knowledge  of  truth 
amongst  the  great  body  of  the  faithful  by  such  influence,  it  is  necessary 
to  believe  that  he  will  fulfil  his  promise.  If  this  tradition  be  of  "high 
and  inestimable  importance"  to  ascertain  "the  sense  in  which  the  Apos- 
tles, and  so  forth,  held  the  words  of  Christ  in  relation  to  his  mission, 
offices,  and  nature,"  and  so  forth, — if  the  having  true  doctrine  upon 
those  subjects  be  so  necessary  as  to  cause  the  Son  of  God  to  vouchsafe 
to  become  our  teacher:  this  extraordinary  divine  teaching  must  have 
been  considered  necessary  by  God ;  and  when  he  declares  he  will  be  with 
those  who  teach  this  doctrine  by  his  commission  "always,  even  to  the 
end  of  the  world,"  {Matt,  xxviii.  20),  and  keep  the  Spirit  of  truth  "to 
abide  with  them"  "for  ever,"  {John  xiv.  16,  17),  it  has  the  full  appear- 
ance of  evidence  that  such  influence  upon  the  general  mind  of  the  great 
body  of  the  teachers,  was  not  only  necessary,  but  assured;  and  such 
assurance  is  the  only  guarantee  which  men  can  have,  for  the  perfect 
certainty  essential  to  faith.     "The  supposition  of  such  an  influence  is 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION        155 


attended  with  insuperable  difficulties."  I  acknowledge,  gentlemen,  that 
to  a  Protestant,  if  he  desire  so  to  continue,  it  must;  for  if  such  influ- 
ence be  once  admitted,  he  must  become  a  member  of  "the  great  body 
of  the  faithful."  But  to  a  Roman  Catholic  it  presents  no  difficulty, 
but  it  removes  all  doubt,  and  creates  perfect  repose  in  his  certainty  of 
the  guidance  of  the  spirit  of  truth. 

The  topic  in  his  paragraph  57  is  not  worth  a  remark. 

The  fifty-ninth  adduces  motives  to  prove  that  the  statement  in  fifty- 
eight  is  not  a  misrepresentation.     I  shall  briefly  advert  to  them. 

If  it  be  a  denial  of  the  free  use  of  the  Scriptures  to  use  proper  care 
that  the  editions  and  translations  be  correct,  then  the  charge  against  us 
is  true. 

If  it  be  a  denial  of  the  free  use  of  the  Scriptures  to  declare  that  the 
meaning  of  the  books  and  passages  is  that  which  the  great  body  of  the 
faithful  have,  by  the  proper  use  of  tradition,  known  it  to  be,  then  the 
charge  is  true.  But  if  it  be  an  abuse  to  deviate  from  "that  sense  in 
which  the  Apostles  held  the  words  of  Christ  in  relation  to  his  mission, 
offices,  and  nature,"  and  from  "that  sense  in  which  the  first  Christians 
held  the  words  of  these  Apostles  as  to  such  and  other  points  spoken  of, 
or  referred  to  in  their  writings,"  we  only  guard  against  that  abuse. 
And  as  "the  account  furnished  by  tradition"  is  on  those  points  by  Pro- 
testants "regarded  as  of  high  and  inestimable  authority,"  and  this  ac- 
count can  only  be  known  by  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  fathers,  and 
the  constant  and  undeviating  judgment  of  the  church,  it  is  to  be  hoped 
that  in  preventing  an  abuse,  we  shall  not  be  charged  with  taking  away 
the  free  use,  unless  free  use  and  abuse  be  synonymous.  If  they  are,  we 
plead  guilty. 

The  rule  of  the  Index  is  not  a  general  law  of  the  church,  and  has 
no  force,  except  in  those  places  where  it  has  been  adopted,  which  are, 
comparatively  speaking,  very  few.  The  note  here  is,  therefore,  an  un- 
true statement. 

Pope  Leo  XII.  only  did  his  duty  in  admonishing  the  pastors  of  the 
church  to  warn  their  flocks  against  imagining  your  Bibles  to  be  either 
accurately  translated  or  perfect  copies,  because  they  are  neither. 

My  object  not  being  a  controversy  upon  the  merits  of  the  question, 
but  a  vindication  of  my  former  statements,  I  shall  not  proceed,  as  I 
might,  to  show  that,  in  the  English  Protestant  Church  from  which  you 
are  sprung,  the  same  principle  exists  and  is  frequently  enforced.  Why 
do  you  call  other  Protestants  heretics,  for  merely  making  the  free  use  of 
their  own  judgment  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Scripture?  The  Uni- 
tarian only  makes  free  use  of  the  Scripture,  yet  you  condemn  him  with 


156  DOCTRINE  Vol. 


equal  decision,  but  not  with  equal  scurrility  as  we  are  condemned  for 
merely  the  free  use  of  our  own  judgment,  in  determining  how  we  may 
best  arrive  at  the  sense  of  the  words  which  the  sacred  volume  contains. 
You  will  not  allow  a  person  to  belong  to  your  communion  who  pro- 
fesses that,  in  the  exercise  of  his  judgment,  he  cannot  believe  Jesus 
Christ  was  an  incarnate  God.  You  tell  him  to  read  the  Scriptures,  and 
make  free  use  of  the  Bible ;  he  tells  you  that,  after  having  done  so,  he 
cannot  understand  those  texts  as  you  do ;  neither  can  he,  after  that  free 
use,  see  why  you  assert  that  bishops  are  superior  to  priests,  or  that  pres- 
byterial  ordination  is  invalid,  or  that  the  administration  of  the  sacra- 
ments should  be  confined  to  a  privileged  order ;  neither  can  he  see  it  is 
conformable  to  God's  ordinances  that  a  formal  liturgy  should  be  used: 
yet  he  claims  to  be  a  member  of  your  church.  He  is  a  good  moral  man, 
zealous  for  the  free  use  and  distribution  of  the  Bible,  of  splendid  intel- 
lect, of  winning  manners,  of  estimable  and  extensive  benevolence,  de- 
sirous of  offtciating  for  a  vacant  church  of  yours,  by  the  great  body  of 
whose  members  he  is  held  in  high  esteem.  Will  its  pulpit  be  open  for 
him?  Yet  he  addresses  you.  ''Gentlemen,  it  is  true,  you  tell  me,  that 
I  am  free  to  use  the  Scriptures,  but  not  my  understanding  in  order  to 
know  what  they  teach  and  require."  "Can  any"  Protestant  Episco- 
palian ' '  on  earth  deny  this  to  be  true,  and  the  only  true  account  of  the 
matter?" 

Gentlemen,  whatever  the  effect  of  the  restriction  may  be,  one  effect 
of  the  abuse  of  the  Scriptures  certainly  has  been  more  sectarian  hatred, 
animosity,  ill-will,  malice,  misrepresentation,  strife,  envy,  contention,  and 
falsehood,  than  has  proceeded  from  any  other  cause  that  I  know  of. 
The  simple  questions  ought  to  be,  "Can  all  the  contradictory  meanings 
attributed  to  this  book  be  correct?"  No  one  will  assert  that  they  can. 
"Has  it  any  true  and  consistent  meaning?"  We  agree  that  it  has. 
"How  shall  that  correct  and  consistent  meaning  be  ascertained?"  We 
answer,  by  the  same  mode  by  which  the  meaning  of  any  ancient  public 
document  can  be  ascertained:  by  the  testimony  of  the  tribunal  which 
was  charged  with  its  preservation,  its  interpretation,  and  with  the 
execution  of  its  provisions,  supported  as  it  is  by  the  collateral  testimony 
of  all  the  sages  who  expounded  it  from  the  earliest  times,  and  the  nations 
which  have  been  led  by  its  regulations.  "No,  no!"  you  answer,  "let 
everybody  interpret  for  himself,  and  act  upon  his  own  interpretation." 
You  have  thus  tiung  the  document  abroad,  and  proclaimed  the  license: 
why  will  you  condemn  those  who  act  upon  your  principle?  Why  con- 
demn even  us,  who  take  the  document  and  judge  for  ourselves?  Gen- 
tlemen, you  may  declaim  against  our  ignorance  as  your  correspondent 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION        157 

does  in  paragraph  60,  but  you  mistake:  the  Bible  is  better  known 
amongst  Catholics  than  is  any  other  book  in  existence,  and  it  is  more 
attentively  read.  And  from  your  own  books,  and  from  your  own  acts, 
Catholics,  in  those  countries  in  which  Protestants  are  found,  know  your 
tenets,  your  principles,  and  your  arguments,  with  infinitely  more  accu- 
racy than  you  know  those  of  our  church.  In  other  countries,  where  Pro- 
testants are  not  found,  it  does  frequently  happen  that  the  great  body  of 
the  people  have  as  little  knowledge  of  your  particular  tenets,  of  your 
special  discipline,  and  of  the  nature  of  your  institutions,  as  the  members 
of  the  American  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  or  of  the  Church  of 
England,  have  of  the  tenets,  discipline  and  institutions  of  the  Nestorians, 
the  Eutychians,  or  any  other  of  the  Eastern,  Christian  separatists  from 
the  great  body  of  the  faithful.  Yet  this  ignorance  is  compatible  with 
a  knowledge  of  their  own  religion,  and  of  the  contents  of  the  Bible. 
Nor  would  a  study  of  the  Bible  supply  a  knowledge  of  the  nature  and 
practices  of  a  church  whose  characterfstic  peculiarities  are  mere  denials 
of  what  those  persons  believe  to  be  authorized  by  that  religion  which  the 
Bible  upholds. 

I  shall  endeavour  to  conclude  my  remarks  next  week,  and  remain, 
gentlemen,  Your  obedient,  humble  servant,  B.  c. 

LETTER  XVII. 

But  this,  -whatever  evil  she  conceived, 
Did  spread  abroad,  and  throw  in  the  open  wind; 

Yet  this  in  all  her  words  might  be  perceived, 
That  all  she  sought  was  men's  good  names  to  have  bereaved; 

For  whatever  good  by  any  said, 
Or  done,  she  would  straightways  invent 

How  to  deprave,  or  slanderously  upbraid. 
Or  to  misconstrue  of  a  man 's  intent. 
And  turn  to  ill  the  thing  that  well  was  meant. 

To  hark  what  any  one  did  good  report. 
To  blot  the  same  with  blame  or  wreck  in  wicked  sort. 

And  if  that  any  ill  she  heard  of  any. 
She  would  it  take,  and  make  it  worse  by  telling 

And  take  great  joy  to  publish  it  to  many. 
That  every  matter  worse  was  for  her  melling. 

Spenser. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Sept.  21,  1829. 
To  the  Editors: 

Gentlemen: — There  now  remain  but  few  topics  to  be  disposed  of; 
and  upon  those  few  topics  there  is  not  much  discussion  required  by  the 


158  DOCTRINE  Vol. 


principle  under  which   I   act,   for   the  misrepresentations   which  they 
contain  are  comparatively  few  and  easily  rectified.     The  sixty-first  par- 
agraph of  your  correspondent  well  and  pathetically  laments  the  conse- 
quences  of  your  principle;  and  naturally  resolves  itself  into  the  doctrine 
of  infallibility  as  the  only  efficient  remedy.     We  say  that  the  Saviour 
of  the  world  was  influenced  by  the  view  of  those  consequences  to  pro- 
vide thus  against  the  evil:  we  have,  on  our  side,  the  example  of  the 
precept  given  by  God  in  Deuteronomy  xvii.  to  the  people  of  Israel;  as 
well  as  of  the  precept  given  by  the  Saviour  himself  in  Matthew  xviii. 
17,  together  with  the  promises  of  his  special  abiding  to  preserve  his 
church  in  truth  all  days  to  the  end  of  the  world,  and  many  other  evi- 
dences which  it  is  here  unnecessary  to  adduce.     But  your  correspondent 
is  pleased  to  say,  that  "it  were  vain,  perhaps,  to  expect,  in  the  present 
day,  to  secure  the  attention  of  any  intelligent  reader  to  an  argument 
either  for  or  against  the  Eoman  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  church's  in- 
fallibility."    I,  of  course,  will  call  this  prejudice,  or  judgment  made 
up  before  its  grounds  are  examined ;  he  will,  perhaps,  give  it  some  other 
name.     Is  he  aware  of  the  anathemas  used  by  St.  Paul?     (7  Cor.  xvi. 
22;  Gal.  i.  8,  9).     I  need  not  go  to  any  higher  authority  to  support  the 
declarations   of  the  church,  that  whosoever   corrupts   the   doctrine   of 
Christ  is  anathema.     The  church  condemns  no  one  to  eternal  penalties, 
because  she  has  no  such  power.     But  she  does  declare,  for  she  is  com- 
missioned by  Christ  so  to  do,  the  doctrine  which  he  taught,  and  the 
penalties  under  which  he  commands  it  to  be  received;  and  she  would 
be  unfaithful  to  her  commission,  if  she  did  not  proclaim  what  she  was 
commanded  to  teach  all  days  to  the  end  of  the  world.     If  she  proclaims 
a  falsehood,  it  is  folly  to  believe  that  God  will  be  bound  to  execute  the 
judgment  which  she  declares;  the   eternal  or  temporal  penalty,  in  a 
future  state,  must  be  enacted  and  inflicted  by  God,  and  by  him  alone. 
The  church  claims  no  such  power.     Your  curious  correspondent  adds 
to  his  misrepresentations  when  he  asserts  she  does.     Let  him  adduce  the 
laws  w'hich  enact  temporal  penalties.     There   is   no   such  law  of  the 
Catholic  Church.     Catholic  nations  and  Protestant  nations  have  had  such 
laws.     Does  he   desire  their   abolition?     Let   him  begin   amongst   our- 
selves.    Let  him  make  North  Carolina  and  New  Jersey  cease  to  be  a 
reproach  amongst  us.     Catholics  first  introduced  the  principle  and  the 
practice  of  religious  liberty  upon  our  consecrated  soil:  let  Protestants 
complete  what  Catholics  began.     Let   them   tell   the  North   Carolinan 
Catholic,  and  the  New  Jersey  Catholic,  that  they  shall  no  longer  pay 
the  penalty  of  exclusion  from  office  for  the  profession  of  their  faith. 
In  that  same  paragraph  he  misrepresents  us,  when  he  says,  that 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION        159 

"a  few  multiplied  by  their  own  will  into  the  Catholic  or  universal 
church/'  can  make  "an  absolute  and  unchangable  determination  of  the 
sense  of  Scripture."  Because,  in  the  first  place  the  determination 
cannot  be  made  by  "a  few,"  but  by  a  large  body,  lawfully  representing 
the  entire  millions  of  the  universal  church;  because  it  is  not  "their  own 
will  that  multiplies  them,"  but  the  general  will  which  recognises  them 
as  the  proper  organs  of  its  expression;  and  thirdly,  because  even  those 
representatives  of  the  general  will  of  the  universal  church  cannot  alter 
the  sense  which  has  been  received  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  and 
testified  in  all  ages  by  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  fathers.  I  am  not 
astonished  that,  as  he  proceeds,  in  this  paragraph,  your  correspondent 
should  feel  himself  embarrassed  by  the  practice  of  your  church,  and 
flounder,  as  he  does,  into  a  paramount  authority  which  your  church 
assumes,  but  which  he  would  not  grant  to  either  the  early  Christians 
or  the  Jews,  respecting  even  the  simple  division  of  the  Decalogue  in  its 
proper  heads.  "This  modification  of  the  doctrine,"  as  he  calls  it, 
might  be  very  convenient  to  him  who  is  a  member  of  a  church  that  will 
never  admit  she  is  wrong,  though  she  admits  she  may  be  wrong.  Which 
is,  indeed,  such  infallibility  in  fact  as  made  a  judicious  person  remark, 
that  the  essential  difference  between  the  Church  of  England  and  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  was  to  be  found  in  this,  that  the  first  never 
is  in  error,  and  the  second  never  can  err,  in  declaring  the  doctrines  that 
Christ  taught.  Hence  your  sapient  and  discriminating  correspondent 
would  be  content,  were  we  only  to  declare  that  it  was  of  indispensable 
necessity  to  conform  to  the  decisions  of  the  Church  until  she  shall  change 
or  qualify  her  doctrines.  We  have,  however,  this  very  serious  objec- 
tion, that  we  do  not  believe  the  Church  has  power  to  change  or  qual- 
ify any  doctrine  which  God  has  revealed.  This,  in  truth,  is  the  great 
obstacle  which  prevents  our  acceding  to  his  suggestion.  When  he  shall 
have  satisfied  us  that  we  may  conscientiously  conform  to  what  is  not 
the  doctrine  of  Christ,  until  the  church  shall  see  fit  to  qualify  or  renounce 
the  error ;  all  the  difficulty  will  be  removed.  When  we  find  any  general 
council  determining  infallibly  that  a  former  general  council  was  wrong 
in  a  doctrinal  decision,  we  shall  then  be  quite  ready  to  tell  him  why 
it  might  be  done.  We  are  content  at  present  with  the  knowledge,  that 
during  eighteen  centuries  it  has  not  occurred,  and  believing  upon  the 
promises  of  Christ  that  it  will  never  occur.  In  our  view  of  the  case, 
it  would  be  more  reasonable  and  practically  useful  for  us  to  discuss  at 
present  where  we  should  place  the  spires  of  the  churches,  to  prevent 
their  being  crushed  when  the  moon  shall  strike  our  side  of  the  globe. 
Your  correspondent  makes  a  very  sad  mistake  in  his  conjecture  as 


160  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

to  the  "probable  reason"  for  our  not  renouncing  transubstantiation. 
To  save  him  the  trouble  of  speculating,  I  shall  inform  him  of  the  fact. 
The  true  reason  why  we  retain  the  doctrine  is,  because  we  have  the  fullest 
evidence  that  it  was  always  preserved  by  the  great  bulk  of  the  faithful, 
and  testified  by  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  fathers,  as  taught  by  our 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and  we  find  the  same  evidence  in  the  Scriptures. 

In  viewing  the  paragraph  62,  I  shall  give  your  correspondent  the 
credit  of  honesty;  but  it  must  be  at  the  expense  of  his  information. 
If  I  err  he  can  correct  me.  I  beg  leave  to  inform  him  that  the  Cath- 
olic Church  neither  now  teaches,  nor  did  she  ever  teach  "that  the  Pope 
can  absolve  subjects  from  their  oath  of  allegiance  to  Protestant  Princes." 
He  says,  "it  has  undeniably  been  the  established  sense  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church."  I  have  now  denied  what  he  says  is  undeniable. 
I  suppose  his  meaning  to  be  that  it  is  a  doctrine  of  the  church,  and  that 
this  power  was  an  essential  part  of  the  papal  authority.  He  says  also, 
"that  Popes  have  undeniably  maintained  the  position,  that  faith  is  not 
to  be  kept  with  heretics."  I  know  not  what  evidence  he  might  possess 
of  the  private  sayings  of  a  Pope,  or  a  number  of  them.  But  I  do  deny 
that  any  Pope  did  promulgate  any  such  position,  as  a  doctrine  of  the 
Church.  Let  him  now  produce  his  facts,  because  he  says,  "these  things 
are  matters  of  historical  facts  too  well  known  to  be  disputed."  I  not 
only  dispute,  but  I  deny  that  they  are  facts. 

To  support  the  first,  he  adduces  the  fact,  that  Pius  V.  absolved  the 
subjects  of  Elizabeth  of  England,  from  their  oaths  of  allegiance.  The 
act  of  the  Pope  is  not  evidence  of  the  doctrine  in  this  instance  for  several 
reasons.  First.  The  power  of  absolving  subjects  from  their  oaths  of 
allegiance  by  the  Pope,  was  a  grant  made  by  most  of  the  sovereigns  of 
Europe  at  several  periods,  when  they  were  members  of  a  common  church ; 
they  appointed  him,  who  was  their  spiritual  head,  as  their  common  ar- 
biter, and  armed  him  with  power  to  execute  the  common  law  of  nations 
which  they  had  enacted  in  congress,  and  one  of  which  laws  did  em- 
power Pius  to  issue  this  sentence.  The  only  question  which  could, 
therefore,  arise  was  whether  the  church  taught  as  a  portion  of  her  doc- 
trine, that  the  Pope  had  such  a  power  in  virtue  of  his  succession  to  St. 
Peter,  as  the  head  of  the  Church ;  or  whether  he  had  it  by  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  Congress  of  Christian  powers.  The  Church  never  taught 
that  he  had  it  upon  the  first  ground.  She  saw  that  he  had  it  upon  the 
second  ground,  but  it  was  a  public  fact,  not  a  doctrine  of  religion.  The 
subjects  of  Elizabeth  were  then  absolved  in  virtue  of  a  national  law 
of  Europe,  not  in  virtue  of  a  doctrine  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 
It  was,  however,  successfully  and  legally  contended  that  the  kingdom 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION        161 

of  England,  being-  a  sovereign  power,  and  having  withdrawn  publicly 
from  the  agreement,  was  no  longer  bound  by  its  ordinances ;  and  that 
this  absolution  was  therefore  void.  Elizabeth  herself,  had  such  serious 
doubts  of  the  sufficiency  of  the  reasoning,  that  she  preferred  applying 
to  Pius  for  the  revocation  of  the  sentence,  which,  however,  she  did  not 
obtain.  Her  subjects,  Catholic  and  Protestant,  were  satisfied  with  the 
reasoning,  and  no  one  attempted  to  carry  the  sentence  into  execution, 
until  several  years  afterwards,  Philip  of  Spain,  for  his  own  private 
purposes,  induced  Sixtus  V.  to  renew  the  publication ;  and  the  English 
Catholics  were  the  most  zealous  to  repel  the  invaders,  should  they  effect 
a  landing;  and  thej^  were  never  considered  by  this  act  of  opposition  to 
Sixtus  and  Philip,  to  have  swerved  from  the  doctrine  or  duties  of  their 
church.  Thus  the  fact  of  the  publication  of  such  a  sentence,  does  not 
prove  that  it  is  the  doctrine  of  our  Church — that  the  head  of  that  Church 
has  the  power  of  absolving  from  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  Protestant 
princes  or  powers.  The  law  of  nations,  by  which  the  power  once  existed, 
has  been  long  since  repealed  by  opposition  and  disuse. 

The  Church  considers  kings  and  princes  to  be  men,  and  as  such, 
members  of  the  great  body  of  the  faithful,  neither  above  her  power 
nor  beyond  her  censure.  She  does  not  find  that  Jesus  Christ  made  any 
particular  exception  in  their  favour,  and  although  your  correspondent 
might  venerate  royalty  above  discipline,  such  is  not,  I  will  avow,  the  spirit 
of  our  Church.  Our  Chrysostoms,  and  Ambroses,  and  Gregories,  and 
Beckets,  and  Langtons,  had  the  spirit,  as  they  had  the  faith  of  John 
the  Baptist,  and  they  were  as  ready  to  say  to  an  emperor  as  to  a  beggar 
"this  is  not  lawful  for  thee,"  and  to  denounce  the  one  as  well  as  the 
other;  for  they  are  taught  to  be  no  respecters  of  persons.  Your  corres- 
pondent may  amuse  himself  with  reference  to  false  decretals,  published 
subsequent  to  the  days  when  the  facts  to  which  I  refer  occurred.  When 
I  think  he  knows  something  more  of  the  history  of  those  decretals,  than 
I  believe  he  does,  I  shall  expect  him  to  inform  me  how  they  may  be  just- 
ly and  legally  binding,  and  yet  in  one  sense  be  false.  It  is  easy  to  give 
ugly  names  to  men  who  are  the  glory  of  their  age ;  but  it  is  exceeding 
strange  in  the  midst  of  republican  institutions,  to  find  the  vindicators 
of  public  liberty  in  their  day,  against  the  lawless  despots  of  the  feudal 
times,  branded  by  men  who  claim  to  be  republicans,  with  appellations 
too  bad  even  for  the  tyrants  themselves.  But  those  men  that  do  those 
things  have  one  excuse,  "they  know  not  what  they  do,"  when  they  re- 
peat the  libels  for  which  monarchs  have  richly  rewarded  venal  scribes. 

The  few  and  insulted  Catholics  of  this  city,  as  far  as  I  can  learn, 
despise    your   correspondent's    professed   complaisance   to   them:    they 


162  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

claim  no  superiority  over  their  fellow-citizens  of  any  other  place  or  de- 
nomination, either  in  virtue  or  in  patriotism ;  they  are  content  to  be  upon 
the  level  of  their  fellow-citizens  in  their  civic  duties,  and  of  every  other 
Roman  Catholic  in  the  world,  in  doctrine  and  belief.  They  pay  full 
spiritual  and  ecclesiastical  obedience  to  the  See  of  Rome,  and  with  as 
thorough  a  love  of  civil  liberty,  as  any  other  citizen  of  these  states; 
they  acknowledge  in  their  tenets  nothing  which  endangers  either  that  lib- 
erty, or  the  tranquillity  of  the  land.  By  you  and  by  others,  their  feel- 
ings have  been  wounded,  their  doctrines  misrepresented,  their  practices 
vilified,  their  ceremonial  ridiculed,  and  themselves  held  up  to  contempt. 
Anti-Clunst,  idolater,  heathen,  persecutor,  intruding  stranger,  slave  or 
corruption,  unclean  thing,  and  vicious,  are  phrases  with  which  they  have 
been  assailed  in  a  state  which  boasts  of  its  liberality,  and  vaunts  its  super- 
ior civilization,  purity  of  taste,  and  its  chivalrous  honour.  God  forbid 
that  I  should  deny  that  South  Carolina  is  entitled  to  those  characteristics ! 
But  the  more  elevated  her  dignity,  the  more  humiliating  is  the  reproach 
of  and  amongst  her  children  to  us !  Are  we  suspected  of  disaffection 
to  the  civil  institutions  which  we  labour  to  uphold  ?  Did  we  desert  our 
brethren  of  other  creeds,  in  the  day  of  the  invasion  ?  Did  we  conspire 
against  their  domestic  peace,  and  following  our  own  notions  of  Scrip- 
ture liberty,  whisper  aught  that  might  overwhelm  us  in  unf orseen  ruin  ? 
Was  our  blood  or  our  treasure  withheld  in  any  day  of  peril  ?  Is  the  char- 
ter of  your  liberties  perfect  without  our  name  ?  Did  we  preach  against 
the  acts  of  your  Congress,  in  the  midst  of  a  conflict  with  the  enemies  of 
the  land?  Did  we  ever  express  a  reluctance  to  act  against  a  Catholic, 
as  soon  as  we  would  against  a  Protestant  foe  ?  What,  then,  in  the  name 
of  Heaven,  is  the  cause  of  the  continual  allusion  to  the  dangers  of  the 
Republic,  from  our  body?  We  have  never  entered  into  combinations 
to  paralyse  the  force  of  the  nation,  when  the  enemy  was  ravaging  our 
shores  and  burning  our  capitol.  Let  your  correspondent  refer  to  the 
history  of  our  common  country,  which  perhaps  he  understands,  in  place 
of  dragging  us  to  feudal  times,  in  Europe,  of  which  he  knows  so  little. 

I  cannot  and  will  not  stoop  to  notice  the  miserable  and  dishonour- 
able distinction  which  he  touches,  in  his  second  note  upon  this  sixty- 
second  paragraph,  where  he  tells  us  that  he  does  not  charge  the  Pope 
with  being  dishonest  in  retail,  but  in  wholesale;  it  is  not  in  small  tran- 
sactions that  Catholics  are  rogues,  but  in  mighty  concerns.  I  fling  back 
his  insult  with  the  feelings  which  it  so  richly  merits.  I  defy  him  to  the 
proof.  He  treat  of  honesty!  He  treat  of  good  faith!  Let  him 
look  to  his  garbling. 

Even  in  the  third  note  to  this  paragraph,  he  gives  us  "doomed  by 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION        163 


anathema  to  damnation,"  as  the  translation  of  anathemate  damnentur, 
"should  be  eondenmed  by  anathema,"  the  common  modes  of  expression 
for  persons  convicted  of  holding  erroneous  doctrines. 

He  has  modestly  half-abandoned  the  charge,  "countenancing  and 
commanding  persecution,  massacre,  and  murder." 

He  asks,  why  do  not  our  councils  or  Popes  disclaim  those  imputed 
doctrines?  I  ask:  "Who  would  dare  to  ask  the  Congress  of  the  Union 
to  disclaim  having  held  that  piracy  and  sacrilege  were  virtues?"  No 
rule  of  common  action  requires  that  the  calumniated  body  should  volun- 
teer a  useless  disclaimer.  To  disclaim,  would  imply  that  there  was  an 
apparent  ground  for  the  calumny.  Why  does  not  the  calumniator  re- 
tract? This  is  a  most  natural  question.  But  they  who  gave  origin  and 
currency  to  the  falsehoods,  have  long  since  passed  away.  Would  to  God 
their  evil  deeds  had  been  buried  with  them ! 

"The  canon  and  decrees,  and  dogmas  of  Popery,  yet  unrepealed 
and  unrenounced,  embody  the  power  and  right  to  punish  temporarily  for 
religion's  sake,  and  pursue  heresy  and  schism  with  spiritual  denuncia- 
tions." All  this  I  admit  to  be  true,  "and  temporal  inflictions."  This  I 
deny,  and  I  defy  him  to  prove.  He  adds :  "Protestantism  knows  nothing 
of  the  kind. "  I  refer  him  to  North  Carolina :  I  refer  him  to  New  Jersey. 
I  need  not  cross  the  Atlantic ;  if  I  did,  I  would  go  to  some  of  the  Protest- 
ant cantons  of  Switzerland ;  I  would  say,  that  whilst  the  ink  was  flowing 
from  his  pen,  as  he  wrote  the  paragraph,  he  could  have  known  that  the 
head  of  the  English  Church  had  laid  aside  the  character  of  Protestant  per- 
secutor, which  his  predecessor  had  well  deserved  for  two  centuries  and  a 
half.  He  ought  now  to  recollect  what  a  powerful  effort  the  prelates  and 
pastors,  of  the  Protestant  Church  made  to  perpetuate  the  persecution. 
He  ought  not  to  force  me  to  remind  him  of  the  part  which  was  acted  here 
by  several  of  the  Protestant  clergy,  in  favour  of  the  Greeks,  and  to 
ask  where  they  were,  when  their  flocks  nobly  aided  to  break  the  fetters 
of  the  British  and  Irish  Catholics  ?  Prudence  is  sometimes  found,  where 
neither  charity  nor  generosity  exist. 

With  his  concluding  remarks,  I  have  no  concern;  I  have  been  too 
tedious  and  too  diffuse ;  I  am  anxious  to  lay  down  my  pen.  Truth  and 
principle  demanded  much  from  me :  assailed  as  my  positions  have  been, 
I  know  not  my  assailant ;  I  therefore  could  have  had  no  personal  feel- 
ing against  him ;  though,  if  I  should  discover  who  he  is,  I  trust  my  char- 
ity for  him  will  be  perfect ;  but  I  cannot  say  that  my  respect  for  him 
would  be  enhanced  by  the  merit  of  his  production. 

Should  any  expression  unkind,  uncharitable,  or  unnecessarily  severe, 


164  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

have  escaped  me,  I  regret  it;  and  pray  you,  gentlemen,  to  believe  that 
none  such  was  intended  to  annoy  you,  or  your  fellow-religionists. 
In  the  spirit  of  charity,  peace,  and  truth. 

Your  obedient,  humble  servant, 

B.  C. 


Charleston,  S.  C,  Sept.  11. 
To  the  Editors  of  the  United  States  Catholic  Miscellany : 

Gentlemen : — In  the  number  of  the  Gospel  Messenger  for  the  present 
month,  I  have  read  the  following  paragraph,  which  is  satisfactory  evi- 
dence of  the  candour  and  honesty  with  which  the  editors  conduct  that 
press : 

' '  The  quotation  wliicli  was  made  by  a  writer,  whose  numbers  appeared  in  our 
work,  under  the  signature  of  a  'Protestant  Catholic,'  from  the  translated  Missal  used 
in  this  city,  in  connexion  with  his  remarks  on  the  Koman  Catholic  worship  of  saints 
and  angels,  was  made,  we  are  satisfied,  in  perfect  fairness,  and  without  the  least  in- 
tention of  applying  to  his  purpose  an  error  of  the  translator,  or  of  the  press.  That 
the  comma  at  the  words  'make  intercession  for  us,'  instead  of  a  period,  is  an  error 
of  the  press,  or  of  the  translator,  we  are  since  perfectly  satisfied.  The  Latin  Missal, 
and  other  translations  which  we  have  seen,  of  the  part  of  the  Eoman  Catholic  Offices 
referred  to,  have,  make  intercession  for  us.  The  prayer  here  addressed  to  the  men 
and  women  saints,  is  for  their  intercession,  and  not  for  their  mercy.  The  prayer  to 
canonized  saints,  for  their  intercession  in  behalf  of  supplicants  at  their  shrines,  in  the 
same  office  with  prayer  addressed  to  God,  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  remains 
admitted,  and  we  should  suppose  is  enough  for  the  purpose  of  our  correspondent: 
who,  we  are  sure,  will  not  disapprove  of  the  notice  we  have  felt  it  proper  to  take  of 
his  error,  in  using  against  Eoman  Catholics,  a  wrong  translation  of  a  passage  of  their 
Missal." 

Had  the  "Protestant  Catholic"  correspondent  taken  the  trouble 
to  instruct  himself  on  what  he  wrote,  I  would  have  been  spared  consid- 
erable labour,  and  you,  sirs,  would  have  been  relieved  from  loading  your 
pages  with  the  weekly  refutations  of  insipid  and  often  refuted  charges 
against  our  doctrine. 

I  have,  gentlemen,  to  make  my  acknowledgments  to  you,  for  the 
facility  which  you  have  given  to  the  publication  of  my  humble  defence 
of  the  principles  of  our  holy  faith,  as  well  on  the  present,  as  on  former 
occasions.  In  a  few  more  letters,  I  will  dismiss  the  "Protestant  Cath- 
olic," in  the  hope  that  he  will,  in  future,  study  and  prepare  himself 
on  Catholic  doctrine,  before  he  shall  again  hazard  such  charges  against 
us. 

Yours,  sincerely, 

B.  C. 


two        DEFENCE    OF  PRECEDING  SECTION         165 

[From  the  United  States  Catholic  Miscellany  of  July  5,  1828.     Referred 
to  in  the  preceding  Letters.] 

To  the  Right  Reverend  Doctor  England,  Bishop  of  Charleston: 

Right  Reverend  Sir: — The  Editors  of  the  United  States  Catholic 
Miscellany,  beg  leave  to  call  your  attention  to  a  curious  and  extraordin- 
ary piece  of  information  of  which  they  have  been  put  in  possession,  and 
hope  you  will  have  the  kindness  before  they  proceed  to  make  any  further 
use  of  it,  to  elucidate  the  circumstances  in  such  a  manner  as  to  remove 
the  unfavourable  impressions  which  such  a  report  is  calculated  to  make 
on  the  minds  of  persons  unacquainted  with  the  doctrines  of  the  Cath- 
olic Church. 

They  have  heard  it  asserted  as  a  fact,  and  they  know  it  is  believed 
by  many,  that  you,  Right  Reverend  Sir,  had  advertised  indulgences 
for  sale,  and  that  the  advertisement  was  placed  on  the  door  of  your 
church.  From  the  character  of  one  person,  who,  it  seems,  says  he  saw  it 
there,  they  have  reason  to  think  it  was  not  a  tale  forged  by  him,  but 
that  he  might  have  seen  something  else  there  which  he  mistook  for  it. 
Such  is  the  substance  of  a  report  that  is  currently  circulated;  and 
anxiously  waiting  your  explanation  on  the  subject. 
"We  remain.  Right  Reverend  Sir, 

Your  most  obedient,  humble  servants. 

Editors  of  the  U^iited  States  Catholic  Miscellany. 

Wentworth  Street,  July  1,  1828. 
To  the  Editors  of  the  United  States  Catholic  Miscellany: 

Gentlemen: — ^You  had,  indeed,  good  cause"  to  designate  as  curious 
and  extraordinary  the  piece  of  information  which  you  convey  to  me. 
But  how  am  I  to  correct  the  evil  ?  I  know,  and  I  surely  need  not  inform 
you,  that  the  entire  statement  is  as  unqualified  an  untruth  as  was  ever 
whispered  about.  However  wealthy,  or  aristocratically  descended,  or 
gifted  with  talents,  or  otherwise  correct  in  his  deportment,  the  person 
whom  you  accuse  and  excuse  might  be,  or  whatever  the  situation  he  might 
fill,  I  cannot  so  far  mock  truth  as  to  admit  that  it  would  be  even  charit- 
able to  suppose  that  he  did  see  upon  the  church  door  any  advertise- 
ment which  he  could  mistake  for  one  notifying  the  sale  of  indulgences 
by  me.  I  cannot  surmise  to  what  individual  you  allude,  nor  do  I  wish 
to  know,  because  I  should  prefer  not  being  aware  of  who  has  thus  far 
degraded  himself,  to  being  obliged  to  estimate  him  as  I  should  after  the 
discovery.  May  he  repent  and  be  forgiven!  The  only  notice  concern- 
ing indulgences  that  has  ever  been  published  by  advertisement  on  the 


166  DOC  T  R  I  N  E  Vol. 

church  doors  by  me,  or  by  my  authority,  or  with  my  knowledge,  is  that 
of  the  Jubilee — j'ou  have  the  copy  and  can  use  that  and  this  letter  as 
you  please. 

I  have  been  the  instrument  of  communicating  indulgences  to  thous- 
ands of  persons  during  the  twenty  years  that  I  have  been  in  the  ministry, 
and  have  known  hundi"eds  of  clergjTncn  similarly  circumstanced,  and  I 
never  have  myself  received,  nor  have  I  known  one  of  them  to  receive 
directly  or  indirectly  the  value  of  one  cent  for  such  ministerial  duty. 
Yet  my  denial  is  of  little  value  as  regards  those  who  have  made  up  their 
minds  that  things  must  be,  as  unprincipled  writers  have  stated  them  to 
be.  I  cannot  wonder  at  the  belief  of  stories  imported  from  Europe  and 
Asia,  when  stories  like  this  are  believed  by  the  very  persons  in  whose 
society  I  am  daily  found. 

To  receive  such  information  as  yours,  is  no  novelty  to  me :  I  have 
yesterday  been  told  by  a  respectable  Protestant  lady,  that  she  had  to 
defend  me  from  the  charge  of  trafficking  in  the  sale  of  indulgences  upon 
my  arrival  here,  but  that  finding  the  people  too  well  informed,  and  the 
profits  small,  I  thought  proper  to  lay  aside  the  commerce.  You  can 
w^ell  conceive  how  mortifying  it  must  be  to  me  to  know  that  frequently 
the  religion  of  our  blessed  Saviour,  and  even  my  humble  self  should  be 
thus  treated  in  the  highest  circles  of  our  society ;  and  by  persons  whose 
information  on  other  subjects  I  respect  and  admire,  but  who,  where  our 
Church  is  concerned,  speak  unmeasuredly  and  mercilessly  of  what  they 
have  never  studied,  and  therefore  do  not  understand.  I  assure  you, 
gentlemen,  that  the  hardihood  of  assertion  and  absence  of  information 
upon  the  subject  of  our  religion  is  so  great  as  to  have  at  first  excited 
my  extreme  astonishment :  but  custom  is  the  best  mode  of  removing 
admiration.  I  can  now  calmly  hear  what  I  once  thought  no  person 
would  venture  to  assert,  and  I  have  long  been  enabled  patiently  to  know 
myself  described  as  guilty  of  such  acts  as  if  perpetrated  by  me  would 
stamp  my  character  as  that  of  an  unprincipled,  sacrilegious,  dishonest, 
simonaical  deceiver,  and  my  flock  as  the  most  egregious  simpletons.  I 
have  been  insensibly  led  on,  without  feeling  that  I  have  far  exceeded  the 
limits  within  w'hich  I  intended  to  confine  myself.  I  regret  to  find  that 
your  statement  of  public  report  is  considerably  under  what  I  know  to  be 
the  fact.  But  we  must  have  patience  and  persevere.  The  people  of 
America  will  examine  and  though  slowly,  will  finally  discover  the  truth. 
Yours,  John,  Bishop  of  Charleston. 

This  unqualified  disavowal  is  nothing  more  or  less  than  we  ex- 
pected, so  perfectly  satisfied  were  we  in  our  mind,  from  the  general 


two        DEFENCE    OF    PRECEDING    SECTION        167 

character  of  the  prelate  upon  whom  this  strange  and  malignant  charge 
was  attempted  to  be  fastened,  that  he  would  not  be  guilty  of  an  act 
which  his  religion  not  only  forbids,  but  the  perpetration  of  which  would 
expose  him  to  the  heaviest  penalties  which  that  Church,  of  which  he  is 
a  minister,  could  inflict  upon  him.  But  our  duty  as  Journaliyts,  respon- 
sible to  the  public  for  the  truth  of  each  and  every  statement  we  make, 
compelled  us,  however  disagreeable  to  our  own,  or  hurtful  to  the  feelings 
of  the  respectable  individual  concerned,  to  lay  before  him  the  informa- 
tion we  received,  and  thus  afford  him  an  opportunity  of  vindicating  his 
character  and  his  religion,  before  the  tribunal  of  public  opinion,  and  of 
covering  with  merited  confusion,  an  injudicious,  careless  being,  who 
reported  as  a  fact,  what  he  never  examined,  or  having  axamined,  cir- 
culated as  truth  what  he  knew  to  be  a  falsehood.  We  are  well  aware 
the  trafficked  indulgence  alluded  to,  is  the  one  which  was  published 
together  with  the  Jubilee  in  the  Cathedral  Church  of  this  city,  on  the 
5th  of  November,  1826.  Now,  we  ourselves  have  conversed  with  hun- 
dreds, who  to  the  best  of  their  powers,  endeavoured  to  perform  the  con- 
ditions upon  which  the  benefits  derivable  from  that  indulgence  could  be 
obtained;  we  have  heard  these  conditions  distinctly  and  audibly  pub- 
lished from  more  than  four  altars  in  this  Diocess;  we  have  seen  manu- 
script copies  of  them,  sanctioned  by  the  signature  of  the  Bishop  of 
Charleston,  we  have  seen  printed  ones  of  them  confirmed  by  the  same 
authority,  and  signature ;  and  from  all  that  we  could  gather  from  those 
with  whom  we  have  spoken,  from  all  we  could  hear,  from  all  we 
could  see,  and  from  all  we  could  read,  we  could  learn  nothing  of  money, 
or  bartering,  or  traffic;  we  never  could  ascertain  that  Bishop  England 
proposed  changing  the  temple  of  the  living  God  into  a  simoniacal  count- 
ing-house, the  altar  of  his  penniless  Master,  into  a  vile  money-table,  nor 
the  Missal  of  his  creed  into  a  mercenary  ledger.  "We  fortunately  have 
lying  before  us  on  our  table  a  printed  copy  of  these  conditions ;  we  glad- 
ly insert  them  for  the  gratification  of  our  readers,  and  if  they,  or  our 
trust-worthy  reporter,  can  extract  anything  in  the  shape  of  money 
from  the  duties  here  prescribed,  we  despair  not,  that  in  a  short  time,  by 
some  other  unheard  of  experiment,  they  may  be  able  to  discover  the 
maximum  desideratum,  or  the  philosopher's  stone. 

*' Conditions  to  he  fulfilled  in  order  to  obtain  the  benefit  of  the  Indul- 
.  gence  of  the  Jubilee,  at  present  in  the  City  of  Charleston. 

"1st.     To  make  a  good  confession  and  communion. 

"2d.     To  visit  at  least  four  times  within  the  space  of  one  week, 


168  DOCTRINE  Vol. 

at  any  time  of  the  day  which  may  be  most  convenient,  each  of  the  fol- 
lowing three  altars,  viz. :  that  of  the  Church  of  Hassell  Street,  the 
large  altar  at  the  Cathedral,  and  the  small  altar  at  the  Cathedral,  repeat- 
in  at  each  of  them,  at  least,  the  Lord's  prayer  and  the  Hail  Mary,  each 
five  times,  and  the  Creed  once,  at  each  visit,  to  beseech  God  for  the  con- 
version of  all  those  who  are  in  error  of  faith,  or  in  habits  of  immorality, 
and  that  he  would  vouchsafe  to  enlighten  the  understandings  of  men  to 
see  truth,  and  incline  their  hearts  to  its  belief  and  to  reduce  its  principles 
to  practice. 

"3d.  To  attend  during  the  said  week  at  least  at  three  masses  and 
three  instructions,  in  Hassell  Street  Church;  or  if  there  is  a  serious 
obstacle  to  prevent  attendance  at  the  mass,  either  the  five  decades  of 
the  Rosary,  or  the  Litany  of  Saints  may  be  substituted  therefor. 

"4th.  In  any  special  case  in  which,  through  sickness  or  infirmity, 
or  other  reasonable  cause,  it  will  not  be  in  the  power  of  the  person  de- 
sirous of  obtaining  the  benefits  of  the  Indulgence  to  comply  -odth  either 
of  the  conditions  No.  2,  No.  3,  the  confessor  is  empowered  to  substitute 
some  other  condition  which  may  be  performed. 

ORDER   OF   PROCEEDING  DAILY. 

"Meditation  read  after  morning  prayer,  which  prayer  shall  com- 
mence at  6  o'clock — Mass  at  7  o'clock. 

"Ten  o'clock.  Mass,  and  exhortation. 

"Half-past  6  o'clock,  p.  m.  short  prayer,  short  instruction,  longer 
prayer  and  sermon,  after  will  be  a  h\Tnn  and  music.  These  exercises 
to  continue  during  this  week. 

^JoHN,  Bishop  of  Charleston. 

Nov.  5,  1826. 


PART    II 
CONTROVEESY 


CONTROVERSY 


JUDICIAL  OFFICE  OF  THE   CHURCH 

Letters  addressed  to  the  Bev.  Hugli  Smitli,  A.M. 

[From  the  United  States  Catholic  Miscellany  for  1826.] 

LETTER  L 

Charleston,  S.  C,  July  25,  1826. 
To  the  Rev.  Hugh  Smith,  A.M.,  Rector  of  St.  Paul's  Church,  Augusta. 

Rev.  Sir: — I  am  not,  I  trust,  disposed  to  turn  from  my  path  to 
assail  persons  who  permit  me  to  pass  unmolested ;  but  neither  am  I  very 
willing  to  allow  myself  to  be  assailed  by  an  unprovoked  aggressor.  You, 
Sir,  preached  at  the  opening  of  the  late  Convention  of  your  Church, 
(the  Protestant  Episcopal,)  at  Macon,  in  Georgia;  and  the  Editors  of 
the  Gospel  Messenger  in  this  city,  considered  your  Sermon  worthy  of 
the  first  place  in  their  publication  for  this  month. 

Had  you  not  unnecessarily  waged  war  upon  my  religion,  I  should 
have  laid  down  the  pamphlet  without  an  observation ;  but  your  language 
has  urged  me  to  the  remarks  which  I  shall  take  the  liberty  of  making 
through  the  columns  of  the  Miscellany. 

If  I  am  correctly  informed,  Reverend  Sir,  you  are  no  novice  in 
polemics,  and  you  have  frequently  ere  now,  given  to  the  religion  of  my 
choice  the  full  benefit  of  your  opposition ;  though,  if  report  speaks  truly, 
you  have  not  always  been  successful.  I  have  heard  it  said  of  you,  that 
not  very  many  years  since  you  asserted  that  the  General  Councils  of 
Popery,  (as  your  politeness  has  designated  the  religion  of  the  vast 
majority  of  Christendom,)  could  not  be  infallible  in  their  decisions 
upon  articles  of  faith,  because  they  were  contradictory;  and  that  w^hen 
invited  to  point  out  the  contradictions,  you  were  not  prepared  to  do 
so,  because  you  had  forgotten  them,  and  could  not  then  lay  your  hand 
upon  the  books  which  exhibited  what  they  were.  This,  perhaps,  is  but 
a  mere  unfounded  report,  and  I  am  the  more  inclined  to  believe  so,  from 
the  circumstance  that  your  present  assault  is  upon  the  same  doctrine 


172  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

of  infallibility  in  the  attempt  to  destroy  which  you  are  said  to  have 
been  formerly  so  notoriously  unsuccessful ;  because  it  would  appear  to 
be  a  singular  fatality  which  would  lead  you  into  the  same  field,  with  only 
the  same  weapons,  against  the  same  doctrine. 

However,  Sir,  I  may  be  in  error: — you  are  probably  now  much 
better  armed;  and  you  shew  at  least  more  caution.  Still,  your  caution 
has  not,  I  believe,  saved  you  from  exposing  how  you  might  be  advan- 
tageously assailed ;  but  this  was  probably  more  a  misfortune  arising  from 
your  position,  than  a  fault  arising  from  your  want  of  skill.  I  must 
avow  that  I  should  not  know  how"  to  defend  the  ground  you  occupied: 
but  as  our  acquaintance  must  be  of  some  duration,  I  had  better  proceed 
at  once  to  my  business.  As  I  love  open  dealing,  I  shall  give  the  portion 
of  your  sermon  of  which  I  complain,  and  also  those  parts  which  will  be 
necessary  to  place  you  fairly  before  my  readers. 

Your  text  was — "With  one  mind,  striving  together  for  the  faith  of 
the  Gospel."     Philippians  i,  29. 

You  alluded  to  the  occasion  of  your  holding  a  Convention  in  a  place 
which,  not  long  since,  was  a  wilderness.  You  enforced  the  necessity  of 
having  the  Gospel  defended  by  some  when  attacked  by  others.  You 
enforced  the  obligation  as  considered  in  its  reference  to  Christianity 
generally,  in  concluding  which  topic  you  said : 

"Thus,  then,  it  appears,  that  there  has  been  but  one  sentiment  in 
the  Christian  world  as  to  the  duty  of  'contending  earnestly  for  the 
faith  once  delivered  to  the  Saints,'  when  that  faith  was  assailed;  and, 
that  in  reference  to  this  general  defence,  those  who  differ  from  each 
other  on  minor  points,  may  and  ought  to  'strive  together;'  not,  however, 
by  attempting  that  union  or  coalition,  which,  from  the  infirmity  of  our 
nature,  and  from  a  warm  attachment  to  different  views,  never  can  exist ; 
that  union  which  forced,  and  almost  unnatural,  instead  of  tending  to 
harmony,  too  frequently  ministers  to  strife;  not  by  being  'unequally 
yoked  together, '  by  a  yoke  that  will  prove  galling  to  both.  No,  not  thus, 
brethren,  are  they  who  believe  in  Christianity,  but  differ  as  to  its  pe- 
culiarities; not  thus,  are  they  to  strive  together;  but  by  marching  in 
separate  columns  to  the  defense  of  the  truth,  by  separately  directing 
their  efforts  to  one  and  the  same  point,  and  causing  them  to  meet  in  the 
same  centre ;  thus,  securing  the  benefits  of  combined  exertion,  while  they 
avoid  the  dangers  of  collision. 

"There  is  a  general  coincidence,  then,  brethren,  as  to  what  is  the 
faith  of  the  Gospel,  viz:  the  Revelation  of  God,  contained  in  the  Bible, 
and,  for  this  faith,  it  is  admitted  that  all  should,  in  a  certain  sense,  strive 
together.     But  when  we  leave  this  general  ground;  when  we  ask  what 


two        JUDICIAL   OFFICE   OF   THE   CHURCH        173 

the  'faith  of  the  Gospel'  is,  in  all  its  parts,  coincidence  of  sentiment  is 
at  an  end,  and  many  contradictory  replies  meet  our  ear.  How,  then,  are 
we  to  choose  amidst  all  these  conflicting  opinions  of  men  ?  '  How  is  this 
faith  of  the  Gospel  to  be  more  minutely  ascertained  ? '  This  is  our  second 
inquiry.  What  is  to  be  our  standard  of  appeal  ?  We  point  you,  in  reply, 
to  the  Book  of  God.  We  ask  you,  'What  is  there  written?  how  readest 
thou  ? '  Yes,  to  the  Bible  we  make  our  first  apeal ;  for,  in  the  language 
of  the  great  Chillingworth,  'The  Bible  is  the  Religion  of  Protestants.' 
In  exact  accordance  with  which,  we  find  the  Church  declaring  in  her  6th 
Article,  'Holy  Scripture  eontaineth  all  things  necessary  to  salvation; 
so  that  whatsoever  is  not  read  therein,  nor  may  be  proved  thereby,  is 
not  to  be  required  of  any  man,  that  it  should  be  believed  as  an  article 
of  the  faith,  or  be  thought  requisite  or  necessary  to  salvation. ' 

"You  may  ask,  however,  are  there  not  many  who  appeal  to  this 
standard,  equally  honest  in  purpose,  and  equally  earnest  in  seeking,  and 
who  return  from  its  perusal  with  widely  different  impressions?  Does 
not  every  Christian  sect  profess  to  hold  the  pure  'faith  of  the  Gospel,' 
and  to  have  derived  its  doctrinal  compend  or  digest  from  the  Bible. 

"It  is  indeed  so,  brethren ;  nor  should  this  fact  excite  our  surprise, 
or  drive  us  from  that  most  safe  position,  that  to  the  Bible  must  be  our 
first  apeal.  But,  be  it  remembered,  that  it  must  be  the  Bible  interpreted 
by  enlightened  reason ;  by  the  comparison  of  its  several  parts  with  each 
other;  and  in  entire  subserviency  to  the  unquestionable  axiom,  that  a 
revelation  from  God  cannot  contain  an;^d;hing  that  will  impugn  his  known 
attributes,  or  detract  from  his  infinite  perfections. 

' '  Had  it  always  been  thus  interpreted,  notwithstanding  the  varieties 
in  the  structure  of  the  human  mind,  the  Christian  world  would  not  have 
been  called  to  witness  so  many  divisions  and  sub-divisions,  modifications 
and  remodifications  of  doctrinal  incorrectness.  Nor  would  the  Bible  it- 
self have  been  insulted,  by  being  given  as  the  authority  for  so  much  that 
is  absurd  in  theory,  or  demoralizing  in  practical  tendency.  Perfect  uni- 
formity of  sentiment,  even  were  all  the  circumstances  of  spiritual  prepa- 
ration, and  of  biblical  investigation  equal,  could  scarcely  be  expected. 
Nor  is  this  more  surprising  than  that  God  has  permitted  men  to  receive 
different  impressions  from  the  same  sounds,  the  same  views,  the  same 
subject ;  and  the  want  of  this  uniformity  in  the  inferences  honestly  drawn 
from  Scripture  must  never  drive  us  back  to  that  main  pillar,  and  main 
error  of  Popery,  that  the  Church  is  the  authorized  interpreter  of  Script- 
ure. Against  this,  the  Church  of  which  we  are  members  has  entered 
her  own  protest ;  declaring  in  her  20th  Article,  '  It  is  not  lawful  for  the 
Church  to  decree  anything  contrary  to  God 's  word  written ;  neither  may 


174  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

it  so  explain  one  place  of  Scripture,  that  it  be  repugnant  to  another. 
"Wherefore,  although  the  Church  be  a  witness  and  keeper  of  Holy  Writ, 
yet,  as  it  ought  not  to  decree  anything  against  the  same,  so,  beside  the 
same,  ought  it  not  to  enforce  anything  to  be  believed  for  necessity  of 
salvation. ' 

"Scripture,  then,  being  our  first  witness  as  to  the  faith  of  the  Gospel, 
we  may  next  appeal  to  primitive  antiquity,  either  for  information  in 
regard  to  things  indifferent,  or  illustration  of  things  not  clearly  revealed. 
We  must  suffer  the  Saints  of  the  first  ages  to  declare  '  what  form  of  doc- 
trine had  been  delivered  unto  them;'  what  was  generally  believed  and 
practised  in  their  day;  and  the  natural  presumption  will  be,  that  this 
belief  and  this  practice  were  derived  from  the  Apostles.     Their  testi- 
mony to  facts  we  deem  it  reasonable  to  receive ;  their  opinions  we  would 
test  with  caution.     The  first  rests  upon  the  basis  of  their  unimpeached 
honesty,  and  actual  observation,  and,  consequently,  may  not  be  consist- 
ently rejected ;  the  latter  may  be  erroneous,  for  they  themselves  were  not 
infallible.     Thus  then,  brethren,  would  we  arrive  at  a  knowledge  of  the 
faith  of  the  Gospel,  by  a  reference  to  Scripture  as  the  standard  of  doc- 
trine ;  to  primitive  antiquity  as  a  model  of  practice.     With  us,  the  Bible 
is  authoritative;  and  other  evidence  admitted  is  but  collateral  or  con- 
firmatory.    This,  brethren,   is  the  ground  assumed  by  the  Church  of 
which  we  are  members,  and  it  is  precisely  that  high  and  vantage  ground, 
on  which  she  can  be  safe  from  the  assumptions  of  Papal  power  on  the  one 
hand,  and  the  fury  of  untempered  innovation  on  the  other.     Let  then, 
the  Church  be  the  witness  and  keeper  of  Holy  Writ;  for  so  hath  God 
ordained.     Let  her  have  authority  to  judge  and  determine  in  contro- 
versies of  faith ;  not  that  absolute  authority  which  is  predicated  on  the 
claim  of  infallibility,  not  that  authority  which  would  fetter  the  minds 
and  consciences  of  her  members;  yea,  fetter  the  word  of  God;  but  that 
authority,  which,  resting  upon  the  possession  of  concentrated  wisdom 
and  piety,  and  upon  the  peculiar  benediction  of  her  Divine  founder  and 
head,  is  all  that  she  arrogates  to  herself,  inducing  her  not  '  to  go  beyond 
the  word  of  the  Lord,  to  do  either  less  or  more.'     Give  to  her  less  than 
this,  and  you  make  her  a  mere  nullity ;  give  to  her  more  than  this,  and  you 
then  make  the  Bible  the  mere  creature  of  her  will :  you  magnify  the  ark 
itself  above  the  law  and  the  testimony,  which  it  only  enshrines.     Script- 
ure, then,  in  connection  with  the  testimony  of  the  first  ages,  having 
guided  us,  to  what  we,  as  a  body,  deem  the  faith  of  the  Gospel,  the 
faith,  as  it  'once  was  delivered  to  the  Saints,'  the  question  next  occurs, 
whether  we  are  to  strive  for  this  very  faith,  and  it  only,  in  opposition 
to  any  other  modifications  of  it?     In, other  words,  whether  the  obligation 


two        JUDICIAL   OFFICE   OF   THE   CHURCH        175 


we  are  under,  to  contend  for  the  faith  of  the  Gospel,  generally,  should 
constrain  us  to  contend  particularly,  also,  for  each  one  of  its  doctrines  ? 
Unhesitatingly  we  answer,  that  it  should.  And  for  this  reply,  we  urge 
the  plainest  considerations  of  necessity  and  duty. 

"Proceeding  on  the  principle,  that  it  is  commendable  to  strive  for 
the  Gospel  as  a  whole,  but  to  be  indifferent  to  its  specific  doctrines ;  and 
it  is  no  improbable  supposition,  brethren,  considering  the  proneness  of 
man  to  novelty,  that  if  we  strove  at  all,  it  would  be  for  something  in 
which  there  was  not  one  feature  of  the  original  Gospel  left.  If  you  strive 
not  for  the  integrity  of  the  parts,  what,  my  brethern,  is  to  become  of  the 
whole?  Let  each  attack  that  doctrine  or  duty  which  is  exceptionable 
in  his  eyes ;  and  what  part  of  the  body  of  doctrine  will  not  be  wounded  ? 
Let  one  level  the  doctrine  of  the  Saviour's  Deity;  another,  that  of  his 
atonement ;  another,  that  of  the  influence  of  the  Spirit ;  another,  that  of 
our  present  depravity;  another,  the  justice  and  impartiality  of  God; 
another,  the  fact  that  the  Church  is  a  divinely  constituted  body,  the  min- 
istry and  ordinances  of  which  owe  their  efficiency  solely  to  the  appoint- 
ment of  Christ.  Stand  by,  calm  spectators,  while  different  enemies  thus 
take  fortress  after  fortress,  suspending  your  efforts  because  in  each  case 
it  is  only  a  part  and  not  the  whole  of  the  Gospel  that  is  assailed;  and 
assuredly,  brethren,  your  spiritual  weapons  will  not  be  brought  into 
exercise,  until  there  is  nothing  left  for  them  to  protect,  or  defend.  No, 
brethren,  it  becomes  us  not  thus  to  act.  All  doctrines  or  duties  may  not 
possess  precisely  the  same  importance,  but  it  is  dangerous  to  prefer  one 
thing  to  another;  to  dwell  upon  the  distinction  between  greater  and 
minor  points  in  Christianity.  All  its  truths  are  sacred.  Each  one  of 
them  is  worthy  of  notice  and  of  maintenance.  For  each  one  of  them  are 
we  bound  to  strive.  The  popular  voice  may  condemn  all  attachment  to 
the  peculiarities  of  system;  but,  he,  who,  unconvinced  v/ould  sacrifice 
at  the  shrine  of  popularity,  one  doctrine,  or  one  view  of  doctrine  honest- 
ly held,  might  well  be  expected  to  sacrifice  more,  if  not  all,  at  the  same 
shrine.  If  he  is  not  faithful  'over  few  things,'  how  shall  he  be  faithful 
over  'many  things?'  My  brethren,  if  we  would  not  go  all  lengths  in 
seeming  liberality,  until  it  terminates  in  indifference,  or  absolute  infidel- 
ity, we  must  firmly  maintain  even  the  smallest  known  truth;  we  must 
strive  for  every  'jot  and  tittle'  of  the  Gospel." 

In  the  first  part  of  this,  Reverend  Sir,  I  understand  you  to  mean 
that  they  who  believe  generally  in  the  truth  of  the  Christian  Revelation, 
but  differ  from  each  other  as  to  what  are  many  of  the  peculiar  doctrines 
of  that  revelation,  ought  each  to  contend  in  his  own  way,  that  God  re- 
vealed the  Christian  system ;  that  when  they  meet,  they  will  have  to  settle 


176  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

between  themselves  much  of  -what  that  system  is: — because,  in  truth, 
their  differences  are  very  numerous.  Next,  however,  you  inform  u.s, 
that  they  all  agree  that  whatever  the  system  may  be,  it  is  to  be  foimd  in 
the  Bible :  but  when  asked  what  doctrine  the  Bible  contains,  again  they 
unfortunately  have  a  conflict  of  opinions.  You  next  approach  to  a 
solution  of  the  difficulty,  by  saying,  that  the  Bible  must  be  interpreted 
by  enlightened  reason,  and  you  complain  of  the  evils  which  have  been 
caused  by  neglecting  this  mode  of  interpretation ;  but  you  avow  that 
under  no  circumstances  could  it  be  expected  that  all  persons  should 
agree  as  to  what  are  all  the  peculiar  doctrines  contained  in  this  book; 
and  you  say  that  as  Popery  teaches,  that  by  receiving  the  authorized  in- 
terpretation of  the  Bible  from  the  Church,  there  would  be  an  end  to 
this  conflict  of  opinions  respecting  the  peculiar  doctrine  which  God  has 
revealed;  we  must  never  be  driven  back  to  this  main  error.  You  say 
the  20th  Article  of  your  Church  protests  against  this  main  error  of 
PoperJ^  That  is.  Reverend  Sir,  you  say  it  is  a  main  error,  to  assert 
"that  the  Church  is  the  authorized  interpreter  of  the  Scriptures" — and 
that  your  article  protests  against  the  same.  I  would  feel  happy,  for 
many  reasons,  at  your  avowing  that  your  last  assertion  was  hasty  and 
inconsiderate,  because  obviously,  the  article  as  quoted  by  you  does  not 
protest  against,  nor  in  any  way  contradict,  the  error  as  described  by 
you ;  and  it  should  be  very  well  to  allow  it  to  be  supposed  that  you  did 
not  know  the  force  of  your  own  articles,  though  you  might  be  excused 
from  knowing  the  meaning  of  mine. 

Scripture,  (which  even  with  the  aid  of  enlightened  reason  you  said 
was  insufficient  to  give  full  information  as  to  the  peculiar  doctrines 
which  God  had  revealed,)  being  the  first  witness,  we  may  now,  you  say, 
appeal  to  primitive  antiquity,  to  be  informed  concerning  indifferent 
things — and  to  have  illustration  of  what  was  not  clearly  revealed.  The 
Saints  are  competent  to  inform  us  what  doctrine  they  received  and 
knew  to  exist.  You  distinguish  between  their  testimony  of  facts,  which 
you  deem  it  reasonable  to  receive,  and  their  opinions,  which  you  test 
cautiously.  The  Bible  is  authority — other  evidence  is  only  collateral 
or  confirmatory. 

The  Church  is  the  witness  and  keeper  of  the  Scripture,  having 
authority  to  judge  and  determine  in  controversies  of  faith;  but  not 
authority  founded  upon  infallibility — not  authority  to  fetter  minds  and 
consciences.  [The  authority  which  it  has  is]  authority  to  give  the  word 
of  God  and  not  to  give  more,  nor  to  give  less. 

We  are  bound  to  keep  all  the  doctrines  of  God,  for  all  truths  are 
sacred — it  is  dangerous  to  make  distinctions  between  greater  and  minor 


two        JUDICIAL   OFFICE   OF   THE   CHURCH        177 

points  of  Christianity — we  are  bound  to  strive  for  them  all — we  must 
firmly  maintain  the  smallest  known  truth — we  must  strive  for  every 
jot  and  tittle  of  the  Gospel. 

Such,  Reverend  Sir,  are  your  assertions.  I  have  been  tedious,  but 
it  was  necessary.  The  more  I  reflect  upon  your  mass  of  contradictions, 
the  more  I  am  at  a  loss  to  know  what  could  have  led  you  unnecessarily 
in  the  maze  of  your  perplexity  to  lay  so  lustily  upon  Popery,  unless  it 
was  yielding  to  a  disposition  which  is  very  common,  when  we  find  our- 
selves disappointed,  [under  the  influence  of  which]  we  feel  an  inclina- 
tion to  quarrel  with  those  who  have  been  more  fortunate  than  ourselves. 
Perhaps,  Sir,  you  do  not  yet  believe  that  you  have  been  palpably  con- 
tradicting yourself.     I  shall,  in  my  next,  aid  you  to  see  it  very  clearly. 

Yours,  and  so  forth, 

A  Roman  Catholic. 

LETTER  II. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  July  31,  1826. 
To  the  Rev.  Hugh  Smith,  A.M. 

Rev.  Sir, — The  System  of  Christianity  is  nothing  but  the  collection 
of  the  doctrines  which  Christ  has  taught  to  man ;  this  collection  of  doc- 
trines is  the  object  of  man's  belief;  the  foundations  of  that  belief  are 
the  truth  and  authority  of  Christ.  Knowing  that  he  can  neither  be 
himself  deceived,  nor  deceive  those  to  whom  he  speaks,  man  is  perfectly 
certain  that  whatsoever  Christ  has  declared  must  be  infallibly  and  un- 
changeably true ;  there  can  be  no  possibility  of  error,  and  time  cannot 
change  the  essence  of  truth.  Knowing  that  Christ  has  authority  to 
require  his  belief  of  what  is  in  itself  true,  and  has  been  proposed  by 
the  Creator  to  the  creature  for  his  belief,  man  feels  that  it  is  his  duty  to 
receive  this  truth  so  made  manifest,  or  revealed  to  him.  This  dutiful 
belief  is  faith.  Faith,  then,  is  not  founded  upon  the  mere  discoveries 
of  unaided  reason,  but  upon  the  authoritative  declarations  of  God.  But 
faith  cannot  contradict  reason :  for  God,  who  is  the  source  of  truth, 
cannot  contradict  by  revelation  what  he  teaches  us  by  our  reason, — ^the 
usual  aid  which  he  has  bestowed  on  us  for  the  discovery  of  truth.  We, 
however,  know  by  daily  experience  that  our  reason  is  very  imperfect; 
and  it  is  a  self-evident  maxim,  that  God 's  reason  is  perfect :  hence,  when 
man  has  the  testimony  of  the  perfect  reason  of  God  on  one  side,  and 
the  imperfection  of  his  own  opinions  on  the  other  side,  the  plain  dictate 
of  wisdom  teaches  him  which  deserves  the  preference. 

The  perfect  reason  of  God,  to  which  man's  opinion  should  yield. 


178  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


can  and  does  reach  to  the  knowledge  of  many  plain  but  sublime  truths, 
to  which  our  imperfect  minds  not  only  could  not  reach,  but  which  to 
us  would  appear  altogether  impossible.  You  will  agree  with  me  Rev- 
erend Sir,  in  looking  upon  God's  own  eternity,  his  immensity,  his  sim- 
plicity, his  unity,  his  trinity,  and  a  variety  of  his  attributes  in  this  light. 
I  will  not  presume  to  assert  that  your  expanded  mind  cannot  conceive 
them ;  but,  I  assure  you.  Reverend  Sir,  that  mine  does  not ;  neither  have 
I  ever  yet  had  the  good  fortune  to  meet  with  any  person  who  admitted 
that  he  could  comprehend  any  one  of  them,  much  less  the  whole;  nor 
is  the  Unitarian  one  whit  more  fortunate  in  this  respect  than  I  am ;  for, 
if  he  can  understand  the  nature  of  the  eternal  and  self-existent  Being 
in  whom  he  believes,  he  certainly  is  more  highly  gifted  than  is  your  cor- 
respondent. Nor  is  the  mathematician  exempt  from  the  difficulty,  for 
it  meets  him  in  a  thousand  shapes,  and  in  a  multitude  of  cases.  I  shall 
instance  only  one  amongst  the  most  obvious.  He  believes  that  two  lines 
can  be  continued  to  infinity,  that  those  lines  are  perpetually  approxi- 
mating, and  that,  continued  to  eternity  in  this  approximation,  they  will 
never  meet ;  this  he  demonstrates  most  clearly,  fully,  and  satisfactorily. 
Still,  Reverend  Sir,  how  many  persons  would  exclaim  that  it  is  the  as- 
sertion of  a  palpable  absurdity. 

I  suppose,  then,  that  we  are  agreed  upon  the  admission,  that  the 
reason  of  Christ  is  perfect,  and  that  of  man  imperfect ;  that,  in  conse- 
quence, since  Christ  has  authority  to  teach,  it  is  man's  duty  to  believe 
his  revelation;  though  the  truth  which  he  teaches  not  only  surpasses 
man's  reason,  but  even  frequently  appears  to  imperfect  human  beings 
to  be  an  impossibility,  perhaps  an  absurdity.  Thus,  you  will,  I  trust, 
agree  in  my  conclusion,  that,  when  man  knows  that  Christ  teaches,  it 
is  his  duty  to  believe  the  doctrine,  without  waiting  to  examine  whether 
what  the  Saviour  has  so  taught,  will  be  approved  of  by  man's  own  reason ; 
because,  if  man  was  free  to  reject  the  doctrine,  unless  it  was  sanctioned 
by  his  owa  reason,  the  office  of  Christ  would  not  be  that  of  a  teacher, 
but  of  a  propounder ;  and  man  would  be  placed  over  Christ,  as  the  judge 
who  was  to  decide  w^iether  what  the  Saviour  propounded,  was  true ;  so 
that  man  would,  in  fact,  believe  doctrines  solely  upon  the  authority  of 
his  own  reason,  and  not  upon  the  authority  of  his  revealing  teacher ;  and, 
in  this  case,  it  would  be  an  absurdity  for  man  to  believe  any  mystery. 
In  this  case,  there  could  be  no  fault. 

Faith  is,  then,  the  belief  upon  the  authority  of  God,  of  what  reason 
cannot  by  its  own  force  discover.  Christian  faith,  or  the  faith  of  the 
Gospel,  is  the  belief  upon  the  authority  of  Chirst,  of  all  that  he  has 
revealed.     You,  Reverend  Sir,  very  properly  reject  upon  this  principle, 


two        JUDICIAL  OFFICE   OF   THE   CHURCH        179 


the  distinction  between  greater  and  minor  points  of  Christianity.  By 
points,  I  suppose  you  mean  doctrines.  You  very  properly  say — "If  we 
would  not  go  all  lengths  in  seeming  liberality,  until  it  terminates  in  in- 
difference, or  absolute  infidelity,  we  must  firmly  maintain  even  the  small- 
est known  truth;  we  must  strive  for  every  'jot  and  tittle'  of  the  Gospel." 
And,  Eeverend  Sir,  for  this  you  give  a  very  excellent  reason:  "All  its 
truths  are  sacred, "  i.  e.  they  have  been  revealed  by  Chi-ist ;  for.  Reverend 
Sir,  if  there  be  in  that  Gospel  any  thing  not  revealed  by  him,  it  must 
have  been  an  interpolation;  and  if  there  is  an  interpolation  which  I 
cannot  with  infallible  certainty  separate  from  what  is  genuine,  I  cannot 
be  infallibly  certain  which  part  is  genuine,  and  if  I  cannot  be  infallibly 
certain  what  part  is  genuine,  I  cannot  by  the  Gospel  have  certain  evi- 
dence of  what  Christ  has  taught;  and,  if  I  cannot  have  certain  evi- 
dence of  what  Christ  has  taught,  I  am  no  longer  bound  to  believe  any 
doctrine  as  revealed  by  Christ.  In  this  case,  there  is  an  end  to  Christian- 
ity. To  assert  that  I  would  be  bound  in  such  a  case,  would  be  to  assert 
that  a  man  is  bound  to  believe  what  he  has  neither  the  certain  evidence 
of  God,  or  of  his  own  reason  to  believe.  Hence,  Reverend  Sir,  I  agree 
fully  in  your  conclusion ;  and  say,  that  Christian  faith  consists  in  believ- 
ing the  whole  and  every  part  of  what  has  been  revealed  by  Christ ;  and 
thus  the  "faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints"  evidently  consists  in  the 
[summary  of]  doctrines  delivered  by  Christ,  to  be  by  them  believed  and 
transmitted  to  after  ages.  And  the  abandonment  of  one  "jot  or  tittle" 
thereof,  necessarily  leads  to  infidelity ;  because  it  destroys  the  principle 
that  our  belief  must  be  upon  the  authority  of  our  teacher,  and  not  ac- 
cording to  our  own  choice.     Upon  this,  you  remark  very  well : 

' '  If  you  strive  not  for  the  integrity  of  the  parts,  what,  my  brethren, 
is  to  become  of  the  whole  ?  Let  each  attack  that  doctrine  or  duty,  which 
is  exceptionable  in  his  eyes,  and  what  part  of  the  body  of  doctrine  will 
not  be  wounded?  Let  one  level  the  doctrine  of  the  Saviour's  Deity; 
another  that  of  his  atonement ;  another  that  of  the  influence  of  the  Spirit ; 
another  that  of  our  present  depravity;  another,  the  justice  and  impar- 
tiality of  God ;  another,  the  fact  that  the  Church  is  a  divinely  constituted 
body,  the  ministry  and  ordinances  of  which  owe  their  efficacy  solely  to 
the  appointment  of  Christ.  Stand  by  calm  spectators  while  different 
enemies  thus  take  fortress  after  fortress,  suspending  your  efforts  because 
in  such  case  it  is  only  a  part  and  not  the  whole  of  the  Gospel  that  is 
assailed;  and  assuredly,  brethren,  your  spiritual  weapons  will  not  be 
brought  into  exercise,  until  there  is  nothing  left  for  them  to  protect  or 
defend.  No,  brethren,  it  becomes  us  not  thus  to  act.  All  doctrines  and 
duties  may  not  possess  precisely  the  same  importance,  but  it  is  dangerous 


180  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

to  prefer  one  thing  to  another;  to  dwell  upon  the  distinction  between 
greater  and  minor  points  in  Christianity.  All  its  truths  are  sacred. 
Each  one  of  them  is  worthy  of  notice  and  of  maintenance.  For  each  one 
of  them  are  we  bound  to  strive. ' ' 

And  thus  you  very  fully  and  forcibly  prove,  by  exemplification  to 
which  daily  experience,  adds  melancholy  confirmation  of  truth,  the  cor- 
rectness of  your  leading  assertion,  viz : 

"Proceeding  on  the  principle,  that  it  is  commendable  to  strive  for 
the  Gospel  as  a  whole,  but  to  be  indifferent  to  its  specific  doctrines ;  and 
it  is  no  improbable  supposition,  brethren,  considering  the  proneness  of 
man  to  novelty,  that  if  we  strive  at  all,  it  would  be  for  something  in 
which  there  was  not  one  feature  of  the  original  Gospel  left." 

You  did  then,  Reverend  Sir,  "urge  the  plainest  considerations  of 
necessity  and  duty ' '  to  support  your  reply  to  your  query : 

"Whether  we  are  to  strive  for  this  very  faith,  and  it  only,  in  oppo- 
sition to  any  other  modifications  of  it?  In  other  words,  whether  the 
obligation  we  are  under  to  contend  for  the  faith  of  the  Gospel,  generally, 
should  constrain  us  to  contend  particularly  also  for  each  one  of  its  doc- 
trines? Unhesitatingly  we  answer  that  it  should.  And  for  this  replj'', 
we  urge  the  plainest  considerations  of  necessity  and  duty." 

Now,  Reverend  Sir,  the  sum  of  our  reasoning  amounts  to  this :  Chris- 
tian faith  is  the  belief  upon  the  authority  of  Christ,  of  all  the  doc- 
trines which  he  has  revealed.  The  essence  of  faith  consists  in  the  prin- 
ciple that  we  must  believe  upon  the  authority  of  Christ ;  and  as  his 
authority  is  equally  great  in  the  revelation  of  any  one  doctrine  as  of 
another,  faith  cannot  admit  any  distinction  between  his  doctrines,  be- 
cause the  admission  of  any  such  distinction  would  be  the  rejection  of 
his  authority,  as  far  as  that  doctrine  Avhich  w^e  undervalue  is  concerned ; 
and  if  we  undervalue  his  authority  in  any  one  point,  we  destroy  it  al- 
together; for  if  in  any,  even  the  least  point,  Christ  could  deceive  us  or 
be  himself  deceived,  the  same  could  occur  in  a  variety  of  other  cases, 
and  we  could  have  no  certainty  from  the  testimony  of  our  Saviour  of 
the  truth  of  any  doctrine  revealed  by  him.  To  escape  this  blasphemous 
alternative,  we  assert,  with  good  reason,  that  as  he  neither  is  capable  of 
deceit,  or  liable  to  be  deceived,  his  testimony  in  all  things,  great  and  small, 
is  the  testimony  of  Infallible  Truth;  and  that  man  is  bound  to  believe 
every  one  of  his  doctrines,  and  that  Christian  faith  consists  in  believing 
them  all.  This  result  of  reason  and  basis  of  religion,  Reverend  Sir,  is 
the  only  principle  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  How  then  does  it 
happen  that  we  differ  so  very  widely  in  its  application  to  practice,  if 
you  and  I  are  agreed  as  to  its  truth?     I  assume  that  one  of  the  causes 


two        JUDICIAL   OFFICE   OF   THE    CHURCH        181 

of  our  difference  arose  from  your  frequently  contradicting-  the  principle 
itself;  whilst  I  adhere  to  a  Church  which  has  never  deviated  from  its 
letter  or  spirit.  Allow  me  to  shew  you  how  you  have  done  so  in  some 
instances  in  this  same  sermon.  The  very  commencement  of  the  extract 
which  I  made  in  my  former  letter  furnishes  me  with  a  palpable  instance 
of  this  description. 

"Thus,  then,  it  appears,  that  there  has  been  but  one  sentiment  in 
the  Christian  world,  as  to  the  duty  of  '  contending  earnestly  for  the  faith 
once  delivered  to  the  Saints, '  Avhen  that  faith  was  assailed ;  and  that,  in 
reference  to  this  general  defence,  those  who  differ  from  each  other  on 
minor  points,  may  and  ought  '  to  strive  together. ' 

Now,  Reverend  Sir,  we  agreed,  that  no  distinction  "between  greater 
and  minor  points  in  Christianity ' '  could  be  allowed  without  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  principle  of  faith,  or  ' '  absolute  infidelity, ' '  yet  here,  you  not 
only  allow  the  distinction,  but  you  assure  us  that  "those  who  differ  from 
each  other  on  minor  points  may  and  ought  to  strive  together ' '  in  defence 
of  what  their  difference  destroys.  To  your  erudition,  Reverend  Sir,  I 
consign  the  reconciliation  of  your  own  assertions. 

According  to  our  former  view  of  Christian  faith,  it  was  the  belief 
of  all  the  doctrines  which  Christ  revealed.  It  is  manifest  that  truth  is 
in  unison  with  truth :  Christ  could  reveal  only  truth :  his  revelation  must 
then  have  all  its  parts  in  perfect  union ;  they  must  coalesce  into  one  con- 
sistent system.  His  revelation  was  the  teaching  us  facts  or  doctrines 
which  could  not  admit  of  different  views.  The  fact  cannot  be  changed 
by  any  view,  the  doctrine  must  under  every  view  be  the  same  doctrine. 
From  the  first  quotation  I  make  from  you  in  this  letter,  it  is  clear  that 
you  could  not  admit  any  part  of  his  revelation  to  be  rejected, — from  the 
second  it  is  plain  that  you  do  not  admit  any  specific  doctrine  to  be  a 
matter  of  indifference.  And  from  common  reason  you  must  say  the  God 
of  truth  must  give  a  system  of  revelation  in  union  with  itself,  all  the 
parts  [of  which]  are  in  union  with  each  other.  I  believe  you  will  find 
all  those  positions  contradicted  in  your  following  passage,  which  is  the 
sequel  of  that  which  I  have  above  taken. 

"Not,  however,  that  union  or  coalition,  which  from  the  infirmity  of 
our  nature,  and  from  a  warm  attachment  to  different  views,  never  can 
exist ;  that  union,  which,  forced  and  almost  unnatural,  instead  of  tending 
to  harmony,  too  frequently  ministers  to  strife;  not  by  being  'unequally 
yoked  together'  by  a  yoke  that  will  prove  galling  to  both." 

Because  here  you  say  it  is  impossible  for  those  who  strive  together 
for  the  truth  of  the  Christian  system,  to  be  in  union  or  coalition:  you 
say  they  must  be  ' '  warmly  attached  to  different  views ' '  of  the  same  facts 


182  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

or  doctrines.     I  assure  you,  Sir,  that  I  cannot  reconcile  you  to  yourself. 

View  calmly  your  next  passage. 

"No,  not  thus,  brethren,  are  they  who  believe  in  Christianity  but 
differ  as  to  its  peculiarities ;  not  thus  are  they  to  strive  together ;  but  by 
marching  in  separate  columns  to  the  defence  of  the  truth,  by  separately 
directing  their  efforts  to  one  and  the  same  point,  and  causing  them  to 
meet  in  the  same  centre ;  thus,  securing  the  benefits  of  combined  exertion 
W'hile  they  avoid  the  dangers  of  collision." 

Pray,  Reverend  Sir,  if  there  exists  a  belief  of  all  that  Christ  has 
taught;  if  there  be  no  distinction  admissible  between  greater  and  minor 
point ;  in  what  will  consist  the  difference  as  to  the  peculiarities  of  what 
he  taught?  How  can  they  strive  together  who  differ  as  to  the  object  for 
which  they  strive?  Different  divisions  have  different  systems  of  doc- 
trine, which  systems  are  contradictory,  and  they  have  been  divided  be- 
cause of  the  incompatibility  of  their  contradictory  systems: — the  estab- 
lishment of  one  system  inevitably  destroys  what  that  system  contradicts. 
How  can  you  make  two  contradictory  propositions  be  true  together? 
Sir,  when  you  marshalled  your  columns  upon  the  circumference,  and 
gave  the  command  to  march  upon  the  centre,  you  indeed  were  a  thought- 
less general,  or  you  intended  a  merciless  carnage;  because  each  di- 
vision was  armed  against  the  other.  For  instance,  you  say  that  Christ 
established  Episcopal  government  in  the  Church,  and  that  Presbyterial 
ordination  is  invalid.  The  leader  of  a  Presbyterian  column  denies  that 
Christ  taught  either  of  those  propositions,  but  asserts  that  he  taught  the 
necessity  and  validity  of  infant  baptism.  The  leader  of  another  of  your 
columns  denies  that  he  taught  either  the  necessity  or  the  validity  of  this 
baptism,  but  assures  us  that  Christ  taught  that  he  was  God — co-equal 
with  his  Father.  The  Unitarian  assures  us  that  this  is  a  mistake,  for 
that  if  we  examine  the  Bible,  with  the  aid  of  enlightened  reason,  we  shall 
be  convinced  that  this  contradicts  the  doctrine  of  the  Saviour.  M}'" 
leader  declares  that  St.  Peter  was  constituted  head  of  the  Church  by  the 
Redeemer,  who  taught  that  we  should  all  be  one  visible  body  on  earth 
under  one  visible  head,  and  all  believing  in  the  same  doctrines,  which  are 
all  those,  and  only  those,  which  Christ  has  taught.  "We  are  assailed  on 
every  side,  and  called  idolaters  and  full  of  error.  "We  are  told,  even  by 
you,  Reverend  Sir,  that  a  difference  upon  minor  points  is  not  only  al- 
lowable but  unavoidable — though  you  assured  us  that  this  difference,  if 
allowed,  would  be  destructive  of  Christianity ;  as  I  verily  believe  it  would. 
And  now,  Reverend  Sir,  having  left  your  columns  striving  together  in 
a  not  very  enviable  state,  I  leave  you  to  make  peace  between  them  if  you 
can,  without  having  recourse  to  one  of  two  modes.     Either  admit  the 


two        JUDICIAL   OFFICE   OF   THE   CHURCH        183 

distinction  between  greater  and  minor  points  of  faith,  and  you  [will] 
destroy  Christianity ;  or,  admit  no  such  distinction,  and  be  consistent  in 
reducing  your  principles  to  practice,  and  you  will  infallibly  become  a 
Roman  Catholic.  I  am  aware  the  state  in  which  this  places  you  is  not 
the  most  enviable ;  but,  Reverend  Sir,  you  would  have  been  spared  from 
this,  had  you,  at  Macon,  left  untouched  that  main  error  of  Popery,  which 
alone  can  save  you  from  scepticism  and  doubt.  I  remain,  Reverend  Sir, 
yours,  and  so  forth, 

A  Roman  Catholic. 

LETTER  III. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Aug.  7,  1826. 
To  the  Rev.  Hugh  Smith,  A.M. 

Rev.  Sir, — In  my  second  letter,  I  showed  that  you  asserted  that 
Christian  faith  requires  of  us  firmly  to  maintain  even  the  smallest  known 
truth;  that  we  must  strive  for  every  ''jot  and  tittle"  of  the  Gospel;  and 
that  you  also  assert,  that  they  who  differed  as  to  the  peculiarities,  that 
is  the  peculiar  truths  of  the  Gospel,  who  were  warmly  attached  to  differ- 
ent views  of  the  same  revelation,  who  differed  from  each  other  on  minor 
points,  were  bound  by  duty  to  contend  earnestly  for  the  ' '  faith  once  de- 
livered  to  the  saints;"  although  in  doing  so  there  was  not  one  of  them 
who,  in  the  estimation  of  the  rest,  did  not  omit  striving  for  many  jots 
and  several  tittles  of  the  Gospel — and  who,  in  the  opinion  of  his  fellows, 
did  not  in  several  instances  contradict  that  Gospel.  I  leave  to  yourself 
the  task  of  reconciling  those  assertions.  Perhaps  you  have  succeeded  in 
so  doing.  You  will,  therefore,  have  leisure  for  much  similar  employ- 
ment. 

In  the  second  paragraph  which  I  quote  from  you,  is  the  following : — 

"There  is  a  general  coincidence  then,  brethren,  as  to  what  is  the 
faith  of  the  Gospel,  viz :  the  Revelation  of  God  contained  in  the  Bible ; 
and  for  this  faith,  it  is  admitted,  that  all  should,  in  a  certain  sense,  strive 
together.  But  when  we  leave  this  general  ground;  when  we  ask  what 
the  'faith  of  the  Gospel'  is,  in  all  its  parts,  coincidence  of  sentiment  is 
at  an  end,  and  many  contradictory  replies  meet  our  ear.  How,  then,  are 
we  to  choose  amidst  all  those  conflicting  opinions  of  men  ?  How  is  this 
faith  of  the  Gospel  to  be  more  minutely  ascertained?" 

With  your  own  expressions  then,  Reverend  Sir,  you  confirm  the 
concluding  assertion  of  my  second  letter— that  those  who  strive  together 
according  to  you,  are  in  truth  and  in  fact,  not  one  body  professing  the 
same  doctrine,  but  several  sects  holding  contradictory  opinions.     And 


184  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

who  besides  yourself,  Reverend  Sir,  would  expect  to  produce  a  consistent 
system  of  revelation,  merely  from  the  declarations  of  those  who  teach 
contradictions?  You  who  tell  us,  "Let  each  attack  that  doctrine  or  duty 
which  is  exceptionable  in  his  eyes,  and  what  part  of  the  body  of  doctrine 
will  not  be  wounded?"  Thus,  you  support  the  Christian  system  upon  a 
plan  which  wounds  every  portion  of  the  Christian  doctrine !  !  ! 

We  now  proceed.  Reverend  Sir,  to  a  new  topic.  Here  you  tell  us 
with  Chilling-worth,  that  the  Bible  is  the  Religion  of  Protestants. 
Now  Sir,  with  all  deference  to  Mr.  Chillingworth  and  to  you,  I  will,  on 
behalf  of  Protestants,  protest  against  this  proposition.  Religion,  Rever- 
end Sir,  is  a  disposition  of  the  soul,  and  not  a  book.  What  would  be 
thought  of  me  if  I  asserted,  because  a  profligate  blasphemer  and  robber 
kept  a  Bible  always  in  his  pocket,  that  he  was  a  man  who  always  pos- 
sessed and  carried  the  Protestant  religion  about  with  him.  No,  Sir,  1 
Avill  not  so  far  libel  my  Protestant  fellow-citizens,  as  to  say  that  their 
religion  is  not  an  interior  disposition  of  the  soul.  I  have  often  heard 
and  still  believe  that  it  is  criminal  for  a  man  to  sell  his  religion,  or  to 
give  it  away.  But,  if  INIr.  Chillingworth  and  you  are  correct,  the  Protest- 
ant religion  is  hourly  bought  and  sold,  and  given  away  by  the  very  best 
Protestants.  What  dreadful  crimes  have  not  the  Bible  Societies  to  an- 
swer for,  if  Mr.  Chillingworth  and  you  be  correct?  Religion,  Reverend 
Sir,  is  obedience  to  God;  whosoever  has  the  sincere  disposition  to  obey 
him  is  religious,  whether  he  has  a  Bible  or  not ;  whether  he  profess  to  be  a 
Protestant  or  not.  Your  sixth  article  does  not  say  that  the  Bible  is  the 
Protestant  Religion ;  but  it  asserts  one  fact,  and  draws  one  consequence — 
and  if  the  fact  be  stated  correctly,  the  consequence  which  is  well  and 
logically  drawn  must  also  be  true,  and  the  whole  article  be  a  sound  prin- 
ciple for  religion.  It  asserts,  that  all  which  God  made  neces- 
sary for  man  to  know,  in  order  to  be  saved,  is  to  be  found  in  the  Bible ; 
and  concludes  therefore,  [that]  no  man  is  to  be  required  to  believe  any 
doctrine  which  is  not  found  in  the  Bible,  or  may  not  be  proved  from  the 
Bible ;  nor  to  do  any  thing,  as  necessary  to  salvation,  unless  it  is  so  found 
or  so  proved.  This  certainly  states,  that  all  the  principles  of  religious 
doctrine  and  of  religious  practice,  are  to  be  found  in  that  book ;  but  it 
does  not  assert,  that  that  book  itself  is  the  disposition  to  believe  those 
doctrines,  and  to  practice  those  duties ;  and  if  it  did  make  such  an  asser- 
tion, it  would  be  the  assertion  of  an  absurdity,  viz.  that  a  book  was  a 
disposition  of  the  soul. 

But,  Reverend  Sir,  you  and  your  article  have  been  a  little  too 
hasty;  because  you  both  forget  to  tell  us  how  we  are  to  know  either 
that  any  thing  contained  in  the  Bible  was  revealed  by  God,  or  that  all 


two        JUDICIAL   OFFICE   OF   THE   CHURCH        185 


which  he  revealed  was  contained  in  the  original  Bible ;  or  that  the  original 
Bible  has  come  down  to  us ;  if  it  did,  which  of  the  different  kinds  of 
books  called  Bibles  is  that  which  came  from  God:  because  there  is  not 
one  of  those  topics  upon  which  we  have  intuitive  evidence.  For  my  own 
part,  I  assure  you  I  can  at  any  moment  you  think  proper,  exhibit  to  you 
some  very  serious  difficulties  upon  each  of  those  heads,  all  of  which,  and 
many  more  you  have,  it  seems,  forgotten.  But,  Eeverend  Sir,  a  difficulty 
does  not  vanish,  because  the  Reverend  Hugh  Smith  thinks  proper  to 
overlook  it :  nor  is  it  destroyed  for  not  having  been  removed  by  the  com- 
pilers of  the  sixth  article  of  his  Church.  Let  us,  Reverend  Sir,  in  imagi- 
nation, clear  all  those  difficulties.  I  take  up  any  Bible  you  please,  and 
I  assent  to  your  proposition — that  this  identical  book  contains  all  that 
God  has  taught,  and  only  what  God  has  taught :  I  shall  allow  you  in  this 
case  to  speak  for  yourself. 

"You  may  ask,  however,  'are  there  not  many  who  appeal  to  this 
standard,  equally  honest  in  purpose,  and  equally  earnest  in  seeking,  and 
who  return  from  its  perusal  with  widely  different  impressions?  Does 
not  every  Christian  sect  profess  to  hold  the  pure  ' '  faith  of  the  Gospel, ' ' 
and  to  have  derived  its  doctrinal  compend,  or  digest,  from  the  Bible?' 
It  is  indeed  so,  brethren:  Nor  should  this  fact  excite  our  surprise,  or 
drive  us  from  that  most  safe  position,  that  to  the  Bible  must  be  our  first 
appeal." 

Thus,  Reverend  Sir,  the  Bible  alone  is  insufficient  to  bring  man  to 
a  certain  knowledge  of  what  God  has  taught ;  because  equally  honest 
men  return  from  its  perusal  with  widely  different  impressions ;  that  is, 
as  you  said  before,  "coincidence  of  sentiment  is  at  an  end,  and  many 
contradictory  replies  meet  our  ear. ' '  Alas  for  us  then !  Reverend  Sir ! 
so,  after  the  mighty  mound  of  difficulties  which  we  have  cleared  in  a 
bound  and  left  behind  us,  we  have  not  from  the  Bible  alone,  that  is  from 
Mr.  Chillingworth 's  Protestant  religion,  any  certainty  of  what  God  has 
taught ;  and  yet  this  is  what  you  call  a  most  safe  position  :  viz.  ' '  Truth  is 
in  this  book,  but  I  cannot  find  it  without  aid  besides  the  book. ' '  Are  all 
those  contradictory  replies  of  honest  men  truths  of  Christianity  ?  Is  the 
Christian  Faith  in  contradiction  to  itself?  But  the  Reverend  Hugh 
Smith  cannot  say  so.  The  Bible  alone  will  not  suffice ;  enlightened  rea- 
son must  be  added.  This  will  draw  out  the  truth  which  was  always  in 
the  book,  but  which  lies  hidden  until  enlightened  reason  discovers  it. 

"But  be  it  remembered,  that  it  must  be  the  Bible  interpreted  by  en- 
lightened reason ;  by  the  comparison  of  its  several  parts  with  each  other ; 
and  in  entire  subserviency  to  the  unquestionable  axiom,  that  a  revela- 
tion from  God,  cannot  contain  any  thing  that  will  impugn  his  known 


186  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

attributes,  or  detract  from  his  infinite  perfections.  Had  it  been  always 
thus  interpreted,  notwithstanding  the  varieties  in  the  structure  of  the 
human  mind,  the  Christian  world  would  not  have  been  called  to  witness 
so  many  divisions,  and  subdivisions,  modifications  and  re-modifications 
of  doctrinal  incorrectness.  Nor  would  the  Bible  itself  have  been  in- 
sulted by  being  given  as  the  authority  for  so  much  that  is  absurd  in  the- 
ory, or  demoralizing  in  practical  tendency." 

This  is  very  well,  if  I  could  know  what  was  meant  by  enlightened 
reason,  and  discover  where  it  was  to  be  found.  If  every  human  being 
has  it,  then  the  Bible  alone  being  given  to  each  individual  will  suffice, 
because  he  has  enlightened  reason,  and  we  shall  have  no  contradictions: 
and  the  principle  of  the  indiscriminate  distribution  of  the  sacred  volume, 
is  one  of  the  best  and  most  salutary  which  ever  was  recognized.  But 
since  you  have  informed  us  that  the  Bible  has  not  been  always  inter- 
preted by  enlightened  reason,  it  is  clear  that  it  is  not  universally  pos- 
sessed: it  becomes  necessary  to  know  where  enlightened  reason  is  to  be 
found,  because  where  that  and  the  Bible  are  conjoined,  I  shall  find  with 
certainty  the  doctrine  of  the  Christian  faith ;  where  it  is  not,  though  the 
Bible  should  be  there,  I  am  likely  to  get  only  absurd  theory,  and  what 
is  demoralizing  in  practical  tendency,  ' '  and  modifications  and  re-modifi- 
cations of  doctrinal  incorrectness."  Do,  pray,  good  Sir,  inform  me 
where  this  enlightened  reason  is  to  be  found,  that  I  may  use  its  aid.  But 
that  you  may  at  once  see  my  difficulty,  I  shall  make  a  short  statement  of 
my  case. 

In  this  city,  many  persons  whom  I  very  highly  respect,  say  that 
Bishop  Bowen  and  his  clergy  are  gentlemen  of  enlightened  reason ;  I  my- 
self esteem  them  highly ;  I  have  equal  esteem  for  the  enlightened  reason 
of  Bishop  England  and  his  clergy :  there  are  many  highly  enlightened, 
reasonable  Presbyterian,  Congregationalist,  Lutheran,  Baptist  and  Me- 
thodist clergymen  in  this  city :  no  one  claims  to  be  more  closely  guided 
by  enlightened  reason,  in  the  explanation  of  the  sacred  volume,  than 
does  the  gifted  and  tasteful  pastor  of  the  Unitarians.  Yet,  all  of  those, 
having  the  Bible  and  enlightened  reason,  and  comparing  the  several 
l)arts  with  each  other,  and  holding  to  the  maxim  which  you  lay  down, 
are  perpetually  contradicting  each  other.  Thus,  Reverend  Sir,  I  fear 
your  remedy  of  helping  the  Bible  with  enlightened  reason  is  no  remedy. 
And  indeed  in  the  very  next  passage  you  appear  to  me  to  saj^  so  your- 
self. 

"Perfect  uniformity  of  sentiment,  even  were  all  the  circumstances 
of  spiritual  preparation,  and  of  biblical  investigation,  equal,  could 
scarcely  be  expected.     Nor  is  this  more  surprising  than  that  God  has 


two        JUDICIAL   OFFICE   OF   THE   CHURCH        187 

permitted  men  to  receive  different  impressions  from  the  same  sounds,  the 
same  views,  the  same  subjects." 

So,  Reverend  Sir,  we  are  to  hold  to  this  most  safe  position,  from 
which  we  are  never  to  be  driven ;  ' '  that  to  the  Bible  must  be  our  first 
appeal."  But  the  appellants  are  clamorous  in  their  contradictions,  all 
drawn  from  the  Bible:  you  say — "call  in  enlightened  reason  to  inter- 
pret the  Bible."  I  have  called  in  several,  who  said  they  had  it,  and 
that  their  interpretations  were  all  made  by  it,  and  the  Babel  of  their 
contradiction  is  worse  than  ever.  You  now  tell  me  "you  cannot  expect 
perfect  uniformity  of  sentiment,  you  must  not  be  surprised  at  it  any 
more  than  you  are  surprised  that  men  receive  different  impressions  from 
the  same  sounds."  Why,  Reverend  Sir,  I  thought  that  all  men  called 
sweet  sound,  sweet  sound,  and  that  any  person  who  called  discord,  con- 
cord, would  be  said  to  have  miscalled  it :  for  it  will  be  concord,  though  he 
should  call  it  discord;  nor  do  I  believe  Reverend  Sir,  that  you  could 
persuade  your  congregation,  that  the  mingled  sounds  which  assailed  the 
ears  of  Hogarth's  enraged  musician,  would  be  an  exquisite  oratorio.  I 
am  sorry  for  your  own  sake,  that  you  should  adduce  a  comparison,  which 
so  completely  destroys  your  own  theory.  But  to  return,  Reverend  Sir, 
I  do  think  it  will  be  thought  surprising  that  you  should  assert,  that  if 
the  Bible  had  always  been  interpreted  by  enlightened  reason,  the  Chris- 
tian world  would  not  have  been  called  upon  to  witness  so  many  divisions 
and  subdivisions,  modifications  and  re-modifications  of  doctrinal  incor- 
rectness; nor  would  the  Bible  itself  be  insulted,  by  being  given  as  the 
authority  for  so  much  that  is  absurd  in  theory,  and  so  forth.  And,  in  the 
very  next  line  to  tell  us,  that  with  all  the  help  of  enlightened  reason,  we 
must  expect  contradictions ;  for  such  is  the  true  meaning  of  your  phrase ; 
however,  softened  in  expression,  it  means  doctrinal  incorrectness.  How 
many  "jots  and  tittles"  of  the  Gospel  will  be  lost  in  this  jargon  of 
sounds — in  those  different  views  of  the  same  subject!  We  found,  that 
there  could  not  be  two  views :  for  either  God  revealed  the  doctrine,  and 
then  it  is  true,  or  he  did  not  reveal  it,  and  then  we  are  not  bound  to 
believe  it — so  that  this  is  not  a  subject  of  opinion,  but  a  matter  of  fact, 
which  does  not  admit  any  difference  of  view.  Thus,  Reverend  Sir,  en- 
lightened reason  is  a  phrase,  which  here  has  no  meaning,  it  is  a  delusive 
sound,  which  misleads ;  and  after  much  wandering,  leaves  us  where  we 
originally  were,  in  perfect  uncertainty  as  to  what  is  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus  Christ:  we  have  indeed  expressions  in  a  book,  but  no  agreement 
as  to  their  meaning. 

As  you  may  observe.  Reverend  Sir,  I  am  now  drawing  near  that 
part  where  you  dealt  me  the  unprovoked  blow.     I  shall  therefore  con- 


188  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


elude  for  this  day,  leaving  to  my  next  to  parry  it  as  well  as  I  can; 
meantime  allow  me  to  remind  you  of  our  progress.  You  have  told  us, 
that  faith  admits  of  no  distinction  of  greater  and  minor  doctrines,  and 
yet  you  admitted  the  distinction.  You  told  us  that  any  man  who  con- 
tended for  only  some  of  the  doctrines  of  Christ,  to  the  exclusion  of 
others,  established  a  principle  which  would  lead  to  absolute  infidelity,  yet 
you  brought  forward  those  who  thus  contended,  to  be  the  destroyers  of 
infidelity.  You  told  us,  that  whoever  did  not  strive  for  every  jot  and 
tittle  of  the  Gospel,  did  not  act  according  to  the  obligation  under  whicli 
we  are,  to  contend  for  the  faith  of  the  Gospel  generally ;  yet  you  placed 
in  this  field  of  contention,  striving  together,  all  the  sects  which  differed, 
by  striving  for  and  against  those  jots  and  tittles.  You  told  us,  the  Pro- 
testant religion  was  the  Bible ;  yet  you  told  us  the  Bible  alone,  and  con- 
sequently the  Protestant  religion  alone,  would  never  bring  us  to  the  cer- 
tain knowledge  of  Christ's  doctrine.  You  said,  that  well  disposed  per- 
sons having  all  this  Bible,  that  is,  all  the  Protestant  religion,  would  still 
be  replying  in  contradictions,  when  asked,  what  was  the  faith  of  the 
Gospel.  You  said,  enlightened  reason  and  its  accompaniments  inter- 
preting the  Bible,  would  save  us  from  divisions,  and  so  forth ;  yet  you 
told  us,  that  with  all  those  aids,  you  could  not  expect  uniformity  of  senti- 
ment, as  to  what  was  the  true  doctrine  of  Christ.  You  perceive,  that 
amongst  Protestants  this  doctrinal  union  does  not  exist,  cannot  exist. 
But  you  tell  us,  we  must  not  take  up  the  principles  of  the  Popish  Church, 
which  has  secured  this  uniformity,  though  you  must  acknowledge  the 
doctrine  of  Christ  is  not  contradictory,  but  is  uniform. 

I  cannot  aid  you  to  reconcile  these  assertions,  but  I  shall  exhibit  to 
you  some  others  of  the  same  description,  which  are  to  be  found  in  your 
sermon.    And  I  remain.  Reverend  Sir,  yours,  and  so  forth, 

A  Roman  Catholic. 

LETTER  IV. 

Charleslon,  S.  C,  Aug.  14,  1826. 
To  the  Rev.  Hugh  Smith,  A.M. 

Rev.  Sir — I  may  now  assume,  as  fairly  proved,  that  you  admit 
Scripture  alone  will  not  be  a  sufficient  giiide  to  us  in  ascertaining  what 
is  the  Christian  doctrine.  Neither  will  Scrpture,  when  interpreted  by 
enlightened  reason,  for  you  will  not.  Reverend  Sir,  I  suppose,  assert  that 
the  Reverend  Mr.  Swiney,  the  Reverend  Mr.  INIoderwell,  the  Reverend 
Mr.  Whitaker,  and  the  respectable  gentlemen  who  are  your  confreres  in 
the  ministry  of  the  word,  they  for  instance,  who  now  communicate  in 


two        JUDICIAL   OFFICE   OF   THE   CHUKCH        189 

the  Baptist  and  Methodist  Churches  of  Augusta,  the  faith  once  delivered 
to  the  Saints,  are  all  bereft  of  enlightened  reason.  How,  then,  are  we  to 
know  the  Christian  doctrine  ?  In  your  own  words :  ' '  How  is  the  faith 
of  the  Gospel  to  be  more  minutely  ascertained  ? ' '  Indeed,  Reverend  Sir, 
this  is  the  only  material  question  in  all  religious  controversy :  and  a 
question  towards  the  solving  of  which  you  have  not,  so  far  as  we  have 
yet  got  through  your  sermon,  made  a  single  step.  However,  you  ac- 
knowledge, that  although  we  cannot  ascertain  with  certainty  what  the 
doctrine  of  Christ  is;  for  this  is  the  only  construction  which  can  suit 
your  expression,  "Want  of  uniformity  in  the  inferences  honestly  drawn 
from  Scripture,"  yet  this  "must  never  drive  us  back  to  that  main  pillar 
and  main  error  of  Popery,  that  the  Church  is  the  authorized  interpreter 
of  Scripture."  Now,  Reverend  Sir,  all  other  modes  latterly  substituted 
having  utterly  failed,  and  this  old  mode  plainly  having  succeeded  in 
preserving,  through  so  many  ages  and  nations,  and  uniformity  of  doc- 
trine, which  is  of  the  essence  of  faith,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  know  why  you 
should  have  so  dogmatically  rejected  it. 

The  only  reason  you  can  give,  is  indeed  apparently  a  very  Popish 
one :  ' '  The  Church  of  which  we  are  members,  has  entered  her  own  pro- 
test against  it."  Which  means:  "you  are  not  to  have  recourse  to  this 
mode,  because  the  Church  of  which  you  are  members,  protests  that  you 
should  not."  If  you  gave  any  other  reason,  I  have  not  seen  it;  it  is 
omitted  in  your  printed  sermon.  Reverend  Sir,  I  leave  to  you  to  recon- 
cile these  two  propositions,  which  are  your  own,  "You  must  not  be- 
lieve that  the  Church  is  the  authorized  interpreter  of  the  Scriptures." 
"You  must  not  look  for  the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures  in  any  way 
against  which  your  Church  protests."  Not  only  are  your  two  asser- 
tions perfectly  in  opposition  to  each  other,  but  the  last  is  the  most  arbi- 
trary and  despotic  in  its  principle,  of  any  that  ever  fell  under  my  obser- 
vation. It  is  as  unlike  the  principle  of  the  Catholic  Church,  of  which 
Protestants  complain,  as  any  principle  can  be  unlike  another.  I  shall 
exhibit  both.  Catholic  principle:  God  has  constituted  the  Church  a 
tribunal,  to  give  with  authority  the  true  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures ; 
therefore,  you  ought  to  receive  her  interpretation,  in  order  to  pay  due 
homage  to  him  who  created  and  gave  power  to  the  tribunal.  Reverend 
Hugh  Smith's  principle;  God  has  not  constituted  the  Church  a  tribunal,  to 
give  with  authority  the  true  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures;  neverthe- 
less, you  must  not  have  recourse  for  their  interpretation  to  a  mode 
against  which  she  protests.  Despotism,  or  arbitrary  rule.  Reverend  Sir, 
is  using  power  which  has  not  been  properly  and  sufficiently  granted,  and 
he  who  says,  that  "he  will  use  that  power,  although  he  believes  it  has 


190  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

not  been  granted, ' '  is,  in  grain  and  constitution,  knowingly  and  willingly 
an  arbitrary  despot  in  the  fullest  meaning  of  the  word ;  not  so  the  man 
who  uses  a  power  which  he  conscientiously  believes  has  been  properly  de- 
rived to  him,  from  a  competent  source:  though  he  might  err  as  to  the 
fact,  he  is  not  a  despot,  he  is  not  arbitrary,  when  he  uses  it  only  because 
he  believes  he  is  empowered,  but  is  not  disposed  to  use  it,  if  he  should 
discover  that  such  power  had  not  been  granted.  Need  I  make  any  ap- 
plication of  the  facts  to  the  principles,  to  prove  that  you  must  either 
assert,  that  your  Church  is  divinely  authorized  to  give  with  infallible 
certainty  the  true  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures,  or  that  her  assuming 
to  do,  what  she  says,  is  not  in  her  grant  from  Heaven,  viz.  to  give  us  with 
precision  and  certainty  the  true  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures,  and 
thus  the  knowledge  of  what  Christ  taught  in  articles  of  belief :  is  an  arbi- 
trary, despotic  and  tyrannical  usurpation  ?  Those  expressions,  Reverend 
Sir,  are  not  applied  to  the  individual  members  of  your  church ;  they  are 
applied  as  the  natural  and  inevitable  results  of  your  assertions ;  they  are 
applied  to  the  system  which  you  wovild  establish:  a  system  not  only  in 
direct  opposition  to  the  first  principles  of  the  Christian  religion;  but 
moreover  fitted  to  excite  disgust  and  indignaton  amongst  a  people  who, 
being  justly  jealous  of  their  rights  and  liberty,  are  not  disposed  to  ad- 
mit the  exercise  of  any  power  except  what  is  evidently  derived  from 
their  God,  or  from  themselves. 

I  have  assumed,  Reverend  Sir,  that  your  Church  did  protest  against 
what  you  stated  to  "be  the  main  pillar  and  the  main  error  of  Popery.'* 
But  is  the  fact  so  ?  Let  us  examine  your  ground  for  the  assertion.  The 
error  you  say  is,  ' '  that  the  Church  is  the  authorized  interpreter  of  Scrip- 
ture." I  shall  not  here  compare  yourself  with  yourself,  that  hon  houche, 
I  shall  reserve ;  but  I  will  compare  your  assertion  with  your  proof — 

' '  And  the  want  of  this  uniformity  in  the  inferences,  honestly  drawn 
from  the  Scripture,  must  never  drive  us  back  to  that  main  pillar,  and 
main  error  of  Popery,  that  the  Church  is  the  authorized  interpreter  of 
Scripture.  Against  this,  the  Church  of  which  we  are  members,  has  en- 
tered her  own  protest ;  declaring  in  her  20th  article,  '  It  is  not  lawful  for 
the  Church  to  decree  any  thing  contrary  to  God's  word  written;  neither 
may  it  so  explain  one  place  of  Scripture,  that  it  be  repugnant  to  another. 
Wherefore,  although  the  Church  be  a  witness  and  keeper  of  Holy  Writ, 
yet  as  it  ought  not  to  decree  any  thing  against  the  same,  so,  beside  the 
same,  ought  it  not  to  enforce  any  thing  to  be  believed  for  necessity  of 
salvation.'  " 

Now,  the  20th  article,  as  given  by  you,  consists  of  several  propo- 
sitions,  not  one  of  which  contradicts  that  which  you  called  "the  main 


two        JUDICIAL   OFFICE   OF   THE   CHURCH        191 

error  of  Popery."  It  says  1st,  "It  is  not  lawful  for  the  Church,  to  de- 
cree any  thing  contrary  to  God's  word  written."  I,  a  firm  Papist,  as 
you  would  probably  have  the  politeness  to  call  me,  not  only  do  believe 
this  proposition  to  be  true  as  here  given,  but  even  more  than  this,  I 
would  strike  out  the  word  written,  or  I  would  add  the  words,  or  unwrit- 
ten, and  thus  extending  the  proposition,  I  would  uphold  it.  2d,  ' '  Neither 
may  the  Church  so  explain  one  place  of  Scripture,  that  it  be  repugnant 
to  another."  Granted.  3d,  "Although  the  Church  is  a  witness  and 
keeper  of  Holy  Writ,  it  ought  not  to  decree  any  thing  against  the  same. ' ' 
Granted.  The  wherefore,  shows  this  to  be  a  conclusion  drawn  from  the 
first  two  propositions.  I  allow  the  truth  of  the  premises,  and  the  ac- 
curacy and  the  truth  of  the  conclusion.  4th,  ' '  The  Church  ought  not  to 
enforce  any  thing  to  be  believed  for  necessity  of  salvation,  beside  the 
Holy  Writ. ' '  From  this  proposition  I  dissent  for  sufficient  reasons.  But 
now  I  do  not  give  them,  for  the  only  question  is — which  of  those  four 
propositions  denies  the  assertion,  "that  the  Church  is  the  authorized  in- 
terpreter of  Scripture?"  How  could  you.  Reverend  Sir,  have  so  far 
committed  yourself,  as  to  draw  a  conclusion  not  contained  in  your  prem- 
ises, as  this  evidently  is  not?  Nay,  I  go  farther,  and  say,  that  the  three 
first  propositions  evidently  imply  the  power  of  this  authorized  interpre- 
tation to  be  in  the  Church ;  so  that  you  have  been  doubly  unfortunate, 
for  you  have  not  shown  that  your  Church  protests  against  this  error  of 
Popery,  and  you  have  produced  an  article,  which  you  assert  does  what  it 
does  not,  viz :  protests  against  this  error,  and  which,  moreover,  actually 
supposes  what  you  call  error,  to  be  the  practice  of  your  Church,  and 
only  gives  rules  for  regulating  that  practice.  It  does  not  assert,  that  the 
Church  is  not  authorized  to  interpret  the  Scripture,  but  says,  she  is  not 
authorized  to  interpret  it  absurdly,  nor  to  teach  any  thing  as  necessary 
for  faith,  besides  its  contents :  thus  your  Church  rescues  herself  in  a 
great  measure  from  that  charge  of  despotism  and  tyranny  which  you 
would,  in  your  zeal  against  Papists,  so  thoughtlessly  fasten  upon 
your  own  respectable  society. 

I  would  here,  disclaiming  all  "intention  of  disrespect  or  obtrusion, 
ask  you.  Reverend  Sir,  whether  your  own  practice  is  not  in  opposition 
to  the  principle  which  you  lay  down."  I  know  you  are  an  officiating 
clergyman,  who  preach  the  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  to  your  con- 
gregation ;  w^hence,  I  would  ask  you,  as  an  Episcopalian,  do  you  derive 
authority  to  give  this  public  interpretation  ?  Is  it  not  from  your  Church, 
through  the  bishop  w^ho  gave  you  ordination?  Did  the  Church  then, 
through  the  bishop,  give  you  a  power  which  she  had  not  herself?  It  is 
not  a  private,  but  a  public  fact,  that  you  hold  weekly  meetings  of  pious 


192  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

ladies,  who,  together  with  you,  search  the  Scriptures,  for  the  purpose  oE 
interpretation,  and  that  your  researches  are  generally  directed  to  the 
most  abstruse  and  difficult  questions.  Do  they  conceive  that  the  opinion 
of  each  lady  is  equal  in  value  to  yours?  Do  you  believe,  that,  if  the 
most  highly  gifted  amongst  those  ladies,  was  to  discover,  that  ' '  this  is  my 
body,"  means,  "this  is  my  body,"  you  would  consider  she  had  equal 
authority  so  to  interpret  it  to  your  congregation  on  the  succeeding  Sun- 
day, as  you  would,  to  tell  them,  "this  is  my  body,"  means,  "this  is  not 
my  body."  How  often.  Reverend  Sir,  if  report  says  truly,  have  you 
not  been  obliged  to  repress  the  zeal  of  some  fair  disputant,  by  the  as- 
surance, that  if  she  persisted  in  her  favorite  interpretation,  it  would  be 
"heresy,"  because  it  was  in  opposition  to  the  authorized  interpretation 
of  the  Church?  I  have  been  assured,  that  this  main  error  has  frequently 
been  your  main  pillar,  to  preserve  you  from  being  borne  away  to  every 
side  by  the  unsteady  torrent  of  your  impetuous,  yet  gentle,  your  docile, 
yet  dogmatizing  assailants  and  supporters.  Your  Church  herself,  Rev- 
erend Sir,  disclaims  not  this  power,  for  she  judges  what  is  heresy,  and 
what  is  true  doctrine,  and  therefore  assumes  to  be  an  authorized  inter- 
preter of  the  Scriptures,  so  that  she  either  must  condemn  her  practice, 
or  your  assertion. 

Thus  baffled  in  discovering  a  rule,  by  which  you  will  "minutely  as- 
certain the  faith  of  the  Gospel, ' '  you  proceed  to  make  new  assertions. 
"Scripture  alone,  is  insufficient."  How  often  has  the  Catholic  been 
charged  with  blasphemy,  and  held  up  to  execration  by  the  English 
Church  and  the  Bible  Societies,  for  merely  making  this  assertion,  which 
now  forms  a  basis  of  the  system  which  you  endeavor  to  defend  ?  ' '  Scrip- 
ture, interpreted  by  enlightened  reason,  is  not  sufficient. ' '  But  still  ' '  to 
the  Bible  must  be  our  first  appeal" — "this  is  a  most  safe  position."  You 
then  proceed: 

"Scripture,  then,  being  our  first  witness  as  to  the  faith  of  the  Gos- 
pel, we  may  next  appeal  to  primitive  antiquity,  either  for  information 
in  regard  to  things  indifferent,  or  illustration  of  things  not  clearly  re- 
vealed. We  must  suffer  the  Saints  of  the  first  ages  to  declare,  'What 
form  of  doctrine  had  been  delivered  unto  them ; '  what  was  generally 
believed  and  practised  in  their  day;  and  the  natural  presumption  will 
be,  that  this  belief,  and  this  practice,  were  derived  from  the  Apostles. 
Their  testimony  to  facts,  we  deem  it  reasonable  to  receive ;  their  opinions 
we  would  test  with  caution.  The  first  rests  upon  the  basis  of  their  unim- 
peached  honesty  and  actual  observation,  and  consequently,  may  not  be 
consistently  rejected:  the  latter  may  be  erroneous,  for  they  themselves 
were  not  infallible.    Thus  then,  brethren,  would  we  arrive  at  a  knowledge 


two        JUDICIAL   OFFICE   OF   THE   CHURCH        193 

of  the  faith  of  the  Gospel,  by  a  reference  to  Scripture,  as  the  standard 
of  doctrine ;  to  primitive  antiquity  as  a  model  of  practice. ' ' 

Now,  Reverend  Sir,  I  assert  that  your  latter  mode  leaves  us  exactly 
where  we  were  before  you  gave  us  this  unmeaning  passage.  I  call  it  un- 
meaning, and  it  is  precisely,  because  it  is  so.  I  make  the  assertion,  that 
we  are  still  as  far  as  ever  from  ascertaining  the  faith  of  the  Gospel.  In 
the  first  place.  Scripture  alone,  that  is  what  you  here  call  our  first  wit- 
ness, you  already  said  was  sufficient.  You  next  appeal  to  primitive  an- 
tiquity. Now  I  should  like  to  know  where  this  primitive  antiquity  is  to 
be  found — you  appear  to  say  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  testimony  of  the 
Saints  of  the  first  ages.  I  am  still  at  a  loss — because  you  neither  tell  me 
to  what  period  the  first  ages  reach,  nor  who  were  the  Saints.  Thus  you 
send  me  to  witnesses  of  a  very  vague  description,  who  live  in  time  un- 
defined. For  instance,  I  appeal  to  the  testimony  of  St.  Augustine  in  the 
fifth  age,  who  testifies  to  me  that  the  doctrines  of  praying  for  the  dead, 
and  of  offering  up  the  holy  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  were,  in  his  day,  re- 
ceived as  derived  from  the  Apostles.  I  deem  it  reasonable  to  receive  this 
testimony  as  to  facts.  You  deem  it  unreasonable.  I  appeal  to  the  Scrip- 
ture— you  deny  one  of  the  books  to  be  canonical,  and  you  say  I  do  not 
give  a  proper  interpretation  to  the  other.  I  bring  the  testimony  of  St. 
Augustine  to  uphold  my  position.  How  am  I  to  know  that  he  is  a  saint 
of  the  first  ages  ?  I  can  decide  for  myself.  I  say  that  you  are  at  liberty 
to  deny  that  he  was  a  saint,  or  that  the  fifth  was  one  of  the  first  ages. 
Suppose  you  make  either  denial,  how  far  have  we  got  any  mode  of  de- 
ciding our  difference  ? — I  see  none.  Therefore  I  call  your  passage  vague, 
unmeaning,  useless  and  deceptive,  not  that  I  charge  you  with  intention 
of  deceit.  I  believe  you  think  your  passage  does  convey  precise  ideas. 
Though  I  look  upon  you  to  have  been  very  imprudent.  Reverend  Sir,  I 
should  be  sorry  to  ascribe  to  you  conduct  unbecoming  a  gentleman  or  a 
Christian.     But  I  must  write  as  freely  as  you  preach. 

When  you  send  me  to  primitive  antiquity,  then,  you  delude  me  with 
an  empty  name ;  when  you  tell  me  of  the  testimony  of  the  saints  of  the 
early  ages,  you  send  me  to  a  tribunal  which  is  undefined.  But  I  pass 
over  this.  "Why  shall  I  go  to  them  ?  ' '  Either  for  information  in  regard 
to  things  indifferent : ' ' — Reverend  Sir,  I  thought  we  agreed  that  though 
' '  all  duties  and  doctrines  may  not  possess  precisely  the  same  importance, 
it  is  dangerous  to  prefer  one  thing  to  another;  to  dwell  upon  the  dis- 
tinction between  greater  and  minor  points  in  Christianity.  All  its  truths 
are  sacred.  Each  one  of  them  is  worthy  of  notice,  and  of  maintenance. 
For  each  one  of  them  we  are  bound  to  strive.  We  must  firmly  main- 
tain the  smallest  known  truth;  we  must  strive  for  every  'jot  and  tittle' 


194  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

of  the  Gospel."  Then,  why  call  any  part  indifferent?  We  also  are 
sent  to  the  saints  of  the  early  ages  for  ' '  illustration  of  things  not  clearly 
revealed."  Am  I  awake,  when  I  read  this  in  the  sermon  of  a  Pro- 
testant clergyman?  So  then  to  use  the  phrase  which  has  been  so  long 
flung  at  Popery,  we  are,  by  direction  of  the  Reverend  Hugh  Smith,  to 
go  to  the  fallible  tribunal  of  mortal  man,  for  illustration  of  that  in- 
fallible book  which  alone  is  to  be  the  rule  of  our  faith — and  this  be- 
cause the  book  is  not  clear  as  to  what  God  intends  to  teach !  !  !  Hear  this, 
all  you  who  vituperate  Papists,  for  saying  that  St.  Peter  was  inspired 
when  he  wrote,  that  in  St.  Paul's  Epistles  are  some  things  hard  to  be 
understood,  which  the  unlearned  and  unstable  wrest  as  they  do  the  other 
Scriptures  to  their  own  destruction.  Hear  this,  you  who  tell  us  that 
the  Bible  is  plain  to  the  meanest  capacity!  !  !  Why,  good  Sir,  what 
would  Mr.  Chillingworth  say  to  this?  "The  Bible,  that  is  the 
Protestant  religion,  is  not  so  clear  as  to  God's  revelation,  but  that 
it  needs  the  illustration  of  the  saints  of  the  first  ages,  though  we  know 
of  no  authority  which  is  to  tell  us  exactly  who  are  those  saints,  and 
which  are  those  ages."  Therefore  we  cannot  know  exactly  what  God 
has  revealed  in  the  Bible.  Why,  Reverend  Sir,  this  is  making  the 
meaning  of  the  Bible  depend  upon  the  interpretation  of  a  tribunal, 
which  cannot  be  ascertained,  and  which,  if  ascertained,  would  consist  ot' 
poor  miserable  mortals.  Is  this  the  anti-popery?  Is  this  the  genuine 
Protestantism  of  the  Reverend  Hugh  Smith,  rector  of  St.  Paul's,  in 
Augusta  ? 

From  this  we  would  imagine  your  plain  theory  was,  that  Scrip- 
ture, either  alone  or  with  enlightened  reason,  being  insufficient  to  lead 
us  to  ascertain  minutely  the  faith  of  the  Gospel,  that  is,  the  doctrines 
which  it  contains;  that  difficulty  would  be  removed,  and  the  doctrines 
would  be  ascertained  by  the  aid  of  primitive  authority,  which  would  il- 
lustrate what  was  not  clearly  revealed  in  the  Scriptures.  The  primi- 
tive antiquity  was  the  testimony  of  the  saints  of  the  first  ages,  declar- 
ing "what  form  of  doctrine  had  been  delivered  to  them,"  what  was 
generally  believed  and  practised  in  their  days ;  this  belief  or  doctrine 
we  naturally  suppose  to  have  come  from  the  Apostles.  The  saints  of  the 
first  ages  would  testify  the  fact,  of  what  was  given  to  them,  the  fact  of 
what  was  generally  believed :  the  force  of  this  testimony  rests  upon  their 
unimpeached  honesty  and  actual  observation;  therefore,  the  testimony 
may  not  be  consistently  rejected.  Such  appeared  to  me  to  be  your  train 
of  reasoning,  and  the  only  difficulty  in  my  way  then  appeared  to  be,  how 
I  should  know  the  saints  and  the  times.  I  thought  that  here,  at  least,  I 
should  find  you  consistent  with  yourself,  and  that,  if  we  could  fix  upon 


two        JUDICIAL  OFFICE   OF   THE   CHURCH        195 


the  special  witnesses,  all  our  difficulties  would  be  over.  But,  alas!  I 
reckoned  without  my  host.  Because,  after  this  mighty  preparation,  you 
again  threw  me  back  where  I  originally  was.  "Thus,  then,  brethren, 
would  we  arrive  at  a  knowledge  of  the  faith  of  the  Gospel,  by  a  reference 
to  Scripture  as  a  standard  of  doctrine ;  to  primitive  antiquity,  as  a  model 
of  practice. ' '  Thus,  are  we  flung  upon  Scripture  only  for  doctrine,  after 
the  fine  display  of  its  total  inadequacy,  without  other  aid,  viz.  the  testi- 
mony of  the  saints,  as  to  the  facts,  "what  form  of  doctrine  was  given 
to  them,  what  was  generally  believed  in  their  day !  !  ! " 

Reverend  Sir,  to  speak  with  inoffensive  candor,  I  believe  you 
have  no  distinct  notions  upon  the  subject,  and  that  your  contra- 
dictions and  inaccuracies  arise  from  the  peculiarity  of  your  situation. 
Your  society  says,  that  the  Scripture  alone  is  the  rule  of  faith.  Adopt- 
ing this  principle,  you  can  restrain  no  person  from  so  interpreting  the 
Scripture,  as  to  produce  what  contradicts  you.  Then  you  call  upon 
the  saints  to  protect  you,  but  you  do  not  like  to  give  them  power  to 
direct  you,  as  your  object  is  only  that  they  should  drive  away  your 
assailants. 

Of  course.  Reverend  Sir,  you  have  read  of  the  old  man,  who,  tired 
of  carrying  his  bundle  of  sticks,  called  upon  death  to  release  him;  but 
when  the  king  of  terrors  appeared,  the  old  gentleman's  courage  failed, 
and  he  assured  the  grisly  spectre,  that  he  only  asked  his  aid  to  place 
the  bundle  once  more  upon  his  shoulders.  The  saints  would  be  excellent 
protectors  against  your  friends  the  Reverend  Doctor  Whitaker  or  the 
Reverend  Doctor  Moderwell;  but  as  soon  as  they  cast  a  friendly  glance 
of  recognition  at  the  Reverend  Mr.  Swiney,  it  is  time  to  grant  them 
leave  of  absence — Scripture  alone  is  then  sufficient. 

You  perceive.  Reverend  Sir,  that  our  work  thickens.  But  I  must 
hasten  to  get  through.  Yours,  and  so  forth, 

A  Roman  Catholic. 

LETTER  V. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Aug.  21,  1826. 
To  the  Rev.  Hugh  Smith,  A.M. 

Rev.  Sir — In  my  last  I  was  obliged  to  conclude  when  I  would  have 
preferred  to  continue,  but  the  regulation  for  my  letter  required  its  not 
exceeding  a  certain  length.  I  shall  therefore  pursue  the  examination  of 
the  passage  which  I  was  considering.  I  shall,  however,  keep  my  promise 
of  brevity,  and  discharge  you  with  as  much  speed  as  I  can. 

You  called  upon  the  saints  to  illustrate  those  doctrines  not  clearly 


196  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

revealed  in  the  Bible:  thus  it  is  manifest,  you  allow  that  in  the  Bible 
there  are  doctrines  not  clearly  revealed ;  you  admitted  this  long  before : 
viz.  ^A'hen  you  said  enlightened  reason  was  necessary  for  its  interpreta- 
tion :  and  when  you  said  that  equalh^  honest  men  searching  the  same 
passage  for  the  doctrine,  contradicted  each  other ;  when  you  told  us 
that  with  all  the  aids  of  reason,  of  spiritual  preparation,  and  of  biblical 
investigation,  perfect  uniformity  of  sentiment  was  not  to  be  expected 
among  those  who  studied  the  Bible.  Thus  nothing  can  be  more  evident 
than  that  you  repeatedly  asserted  that  the  Bible  alone,  or  even  with 
those  aids,  was  not  sufficient  to  bring  us  to  an  uniformity  of  doctrine. 
Nothing  is  more  evident  on  the  other  hand,  than  these  two  propositions : 
"Uniformity  of  doctrine  is  essential  for  faith."  "The  doctrine  of 
Christ  is  perfectly  uniform."  The  first  of  those  propositions  you 
have  yourself  maintained:  "That  the  obligation  we  are  under  to  con- 
tend for  the  faith  of  the  Gospel,  generally,  should  constrain  us 
to  contend  particularly  also  for  each  one  of  its  doctrines."  The 
second  is  plain  from  the  simple  view  that  truth  is  uniform,  and  [that] 
Christ  is  truth.  As  then.  Reverend  Sir,  you  have  established  that  the 
Scripture  is  not  sufficiently  clear  to  bring  us  to  uniformity  of  sentiment, 
you  have  most  fully  established  that  it  is  an  insufficient  rule  of  faith; 
and  that  to  be  sufficient  it  needs  some  aid;  and  that  [this]  aid  must  be 
something  more  than  enlightened  reason.  Now,  as  I  come  to  the  main 
error  of  Popery,  to  use  your  very  kind  and  complimentary  expression,  I 
request  you  to  watch  my  assertions  closely. 

It  is  admitted  by  you  that  an  honest  man  fully  qualified  to  investi- 
gate the  Scriptures  might,  and  that  such  men  so  doing  every  day,  do 
find  it  impossible  to  agree  as  to  what  are  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel. 
Hence  it  is  clear,  that  although  the  sacred  volume  does  contain  the  law 
of  God,  and  nothing  but  what  is  his  law,  and  has  all  the  authority  of 
God  himself;  yet  because  of  man's  imperfection,  though  the  book  is 
authoritative,  no  man  can  be  certain  without  some  farther  aid,  that  he 
can  know  the  doctrines  of  God.  Therefore  unless  farther  aid  than  the 
Bible  and  enlightened  reason  is  obtained,  the  doctrines  which  God  re- 
quires of  man  to  believe  cannot  be  certainly  known  by  man.  A  just 
God  cannot  require  an  impossibility  from  man ;  but  it  would  be  requiring 
an  impossibility  from  him  to  insist  that  he  should  firmly  believe  doc- 
trines whose  truth  he  cannot  discover,  from  that  reason  which  God  has 
given  as  his  guide,  or  from  revelation,  which,  though  a  sufficient  motive 
of  belief,  if  clear,  is  so  obscure  in  the  Bible,  that  honest  and  enlightened 
men  cannot  be  certain,  after  their  best  investigation,  what  it  teaches. 
Therefore  a  just  God  cannot  require  of  man  faith  or  the  firm  belief  of 


two        JUDICIAL   OFFICE   OF   THE   CHURCH        197 

doctrines  above  his  reason,  and  for  the  belief  of  which  he  has  no  certain 
knowledge  from  revelation,  as  given  in  the  Bible. 

This,  Reverend  Sir,  is  the  difficulty,  this  the  labyrinth,  to  extri- 
cate yourself  from  which  you  called  upon  the  saints:  but  as  you  re- 
fused to  follow  them,  yon  are  still  bewildered  in  its  mazes,  and  here  you 
are  likely  to  remain.  The  destruction  of  faith  is  thus  the  inevitable  con- 
sequence of  the  first  principle  of  Protestantism,  viz.  that  the  Bible  alone 
is  sufficient  to  attain  the  knowledge  of  the  Christian  doctrine ;  and  when 
you  left  this  principle,  you  ceased  to  be  a  consistent  Protestant.  Now, 
Reverend  Sir,  look  through  that  portion  of  the  world  which  has  ad- 
mitted this  principle,  and  in  the  honesty  of  your  soul  answer  the  ques- 
tions,— "How  many  hundreds  of  sects,  has  it  produced?"  "Can  you 
ever,  admitting  the  truth  of  this  principle,  expect  to  diminish  their 
number  ? "  " Are  all  their  contradictions  contained  in  the  Gospel ? "  "If 
the  Gospel  contains  those  contradictions,  has  it  emanated  from  a  God 
of  truth?"  "If  the  plain  words  of  the  Gospel  cannot  bring  them  to 
uniformity  of  sentiment,  will  any  writing  of  any  saint  or  number  of 
saints,  be  less  liable  to  misconstruction  than  is  the  Gospel  itself?"  "Has 
God  then  left  us  without  any  certain  mode  of  discovering  what  he 
taught  and  what  we  should  believe ? "  "Is  faith  or  a  firm  belief  of  what 
God  has  taught  possible,  if  we  admit  the  first  principle  of  Protestant- 
ism?" You  seemed  to  say,  and  I  say  positively,  that  to  know  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Gospel,  some  farther  aid  beyond  the  Scripture  and  enlight- 
ened reason  is  necessary.  I  write  you  seemed  to  say,  because  though  you 
did  say  that  primitive  antiquity  was  necessary  to  illustrate  what  was 
not  clearly  revealed  in  the  Gospel,  yet  afterwards  you  retracted  the  as- 
sertion when  you  said — "Thus  brethren  would  we  arrive  at  a  knowledge 
of  the  faith  of  the  Gospel,  by  a  reference  to  Scripture  as  the  standard 
of  doctrine;  to  primitive  antiquity,  as  a  model  of  practice."  Before 
this  you  had  said,  primitive  antiquity  would  illustrate  what  was  not 
clearly  revealed,  so  that  as  you  in  your  latter  passage,  speak  of  Scrip- 
ture only  as  the  standard  of  doctrine  by  which  we  know  the  faith  of  the 
Gospel — I  must  confine  the  word  practice  to  mean  acts  and  not  extend 
to  primitive  antiquity  any  authority  respecting  belief,  though  the  saints 
were,  according  to  another  of  your  passages,  to  give  us  testimony,  which 
we  could  not  consistently  reject,  as  to  the  fact  of  what  doctrine  they 
did  receive,  and  what  doctrine  was  believed  in  their  day.  Thus,  Rev- 
erend Sir,  until  you  shall  make  belief  and  practice  have  the  same  mean- 
ing,  I  must  look  upon  this  passage  of  yours  as  involved,  inconsistent  and 
contradictory;  and  unless  you  mean  that  you  have  some  tangible  aid  to 
bring  you  to  a  certain  knowledge  of  the  meaning  of  what  is  obscure  m 


198  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

the  Scripture,  you  have  made  no  progress.  If  by  practice  you  mean  be- 
lief, you  have  written  badly,  when  you  wrote,  the  natural  presumption 
will  be  that  this  belief  and  this  practice  were  derived  from  the  Apostles, 
and  thus  your  whole  passage  is  delusive.  If  you  do  not  mean  belief  by 
practice,  your  passage  is  palpable,  self-contradiction. 

You  produce  against  the  Reverend  Mr.  Whitaker  some  passage  of 
the  Scripture,  suppose  ' '  The  Word  was  God, ' '  and  ' '  The  Word  was  made 
flesh" — you  assert,  that  it  teaches  the  divinity  of  the  Son.  He  pro- 
duces against  you,  "the  Father  is  greater  than  I,"  to  show  that  our 
blessed  Saviour  disclaimed  equality  with  the  Father;  you  appeal  to  the 
saints  of  the  early  ages,  who  testify  on  your  behalf.  Mr.  Whitaker  asKS 
you,  whether  they  were  infallible — you  say,  "  No ; "  but  they  were  good 
witnesses  of  the  doctrine  taught  by  the  Church  at  that  time.  ]\Tr.  W. 
asks  you  whether  that  Church  which  so  taught,  was  then  infallible — you 
answer,  no.  Suppose  ]\Ir.  W.  then  admitted  the  testimony  of  the  saints 
to  be  true,  and  asserted  that  the  Church  erred ;  what  have  you  gained  ? 
Would  not  the  reverend  gentleman  take  exactly  the  very  ground  against 
you  which  you  take  against  me?  To  make  your  argument  good,  then, 
you  should  either  prove  that  the  saints  infallibly  testified  the  true  mean- 
ing of  the  passage :  this  you  w411  not ;  nor  will  I :  or  that  their  testimony 
was  true  as  to  W'hat  the  Church  taught;  this  we  admit:  but  you  must 
now  establish  that  the  Church  did  with  infallible  certainty  then  teach 
the  true  meaning  of  the  Scriptures.  This  I  wall  uphold  as  a  Catholic : 
but  how  you  as  a  Protestant  can  do  that  is  to  me  inconceivable,  and  how 
you  without  doing  so  could  chaunt  your  lo  triumphe  at  Macon,  is  to  me 
unintelligible.  Pray,  Reverend  Sir,  do  you  now  imagine  you  were  war- 
ranted in  asserting  "This,  brethren,  is  the  ground  assumed  by  the 
Church  of  which  we  are  members ;  and  it  is  precisely  that  high  and  vant- 
age ground  on  which  she  can  be  safe  from  the  assumptions  of  Papal 
power  on  the  one  hand ;  and  the  fury  of  untempered  innovation  on  the 
other."  Indeed,  Reverend  Sir,  had  you  lived  in  England  about  two 
centuries  and  a  half  since,  as  perhaps  some  of  your  ancestors  did,  the 
good  Queen  Bess,  supreme  head  in  earth  of  God's  Church,  would  have 
taught  you  to  be  more  cautious  in  using  the  phrase  "untempered  in- 
novation," which  you  now  fling  at  the  Reverend  Mr.  Whitaker,  merely 
because  he  acts  with  a  little  more  consistency  than  you  do  upon  the 
principle  which  is  common  to  you  both,  and  which  first  gave  being  to 
your  Church.  Neither,  Reverend  Sir,  do  I  envy  you  the  lofty  eminence 
to  which  you  have  attained ;  but  I  would  advise  you  to  use  your  eleva- 
tion with  modesty,  to  bear  your  honors  meekly. 

Before  I  leave  this  topic,  I  must  however  advert  to  one  difficulty 


two        JUDICIAL   OFFICE   OF   THE   CHURCH         199 

which  you  appear  to  have  altogether  overlooked.  How  shall  we  manage, 
when  we  have  found  the  saints  and  their  books,  to  know  the  meaning 
of  their  writings  ?  For  instance,  there  is  one  passage  in  TertuUian,  who 
perhaps  is  no  saint,  yet  is  a  good  witness,  which  we  say  teaches  plainly 
the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence,  and  some  of  your  confreres  quote  the 
very  passage  to  prove  the  very  opposite  doctrine. — ^You  and  the  Pres- 
byterians differ,  you  and  the  Baptists  differ,  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 
passages  from  the  saints  and  fathers.  Thus,  you  have  not  as  yet  brought 
us  one  step  in  advance  of  the  Bible,  nor  have  you  proved  the  Bible,  nor 
any  part  of  it,  to  have  been  revealed  by  God,  nor  given  us  a  principle 
upon  which  to  found  that  proof.  Reverend  Sir,  I  have  permitted  you 
to  walk  unmolested  over  many  a  miry  pass,  in  which  I  could  have  made 
you  sink,  by  merely  flinging  upon  you  the  load  of  your  own  incon- 
sistency, and  depriving  you  of  the  aid  of  my  concessions. — I  come  now  to 
examine  the  most  extraordinary  passage  that  ever  came  under  my  eyes. 

"With  us,  the  Bible  is  authoritative:  any  other  evidence  admitted 
is  but  collateral,  or  confirmatory.  This,  brethren,  is  the  ground  assumed 
by  the  Church  of  which  we  are  members;  and  it  is  precisely  that  high 
and  vantage  ground  on  which  she  can  be  safe  from  the  assumptions  of 
Papal  power  on  one  hand,  and  the  fury  of  untempered  innovation  on 
the  other.  Let  then  the  Church  be  the  witness  and  keeper  of  Holy 
Writ ;  for  so  hath  God  ordained.  Let  her  * '  have  authority  to  judge  and 
determine  in  controversies  of  faith;  not  that  absolute  authority  which 
is  predicated  on  the  claim  of  infallibility;  not  that  authority,  which 
would  fetter  the  minds  and  the  consciences  of  her  members ;  yea,  fetter 
the  word  of  God ;  but  that  authority,  which,  resting  upon  the  possession 
of  concentrated  wisdom  and  piety,  and  upon  the  peculiar  benediction 
of  her  divine  founder  and  head,  is  all  that  she  arrogates  to  herself,  ^  in- 
ducing her  not  'to  go  beyond  the  word  of  the  Lord,  to  do  either  less  or 
more.'  Give  to  her  less  than  this,  and  you  make  her  a  mere  nullity; 
give  to  her  more  than  this,  and  you  then  make  the  Bible  the  mere  crea- 
ture of  her  will :  you  magnify  the  ark  itself  above  the  law  and  the  testi- 
mony, which  it  only  enshrines." 

Authority,  Reverend  Sir,  may  be  defined,  power  properly  derived 
to  do  some  act.  Now  I  am  as  perfectly  at  a  loss  as  ever  I  was  in  my 
life,  to  know  what  is  the  meaning  of  your  assertion,  unless  it  is  the  fol- 
lowing: "God  has  established  the  Church  as  the  keeper  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  the  witness  of  their  having  been  kept  unadulterated  and  en- 
tire."     If  this  be  your  meaning,  you  are  to  all  intents  and  purposes. 


'Vide  Article  20th. 


200  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


so  far,  a  Roman  Catholic.     I  suppose  you  would  not  assert,  that  God 
ordained  the  Church  to  have  the  high  and  important  charge  here  de- 
scribed, without  his  also  doing  what  was  further  necessary,  and  what 
it  is  clearly  in  his  power  to  do,  viz.  to  make  that  keeper  faithful,  to 
make  that  witness  sufficient.     Indeed,  it  would  be  arguing  gross  stupid- 
ity in  the  eternal  God,  to  suppose  he  would  give  the  sacred  deposit  of 
heavenly  truth  to  a  keeper  incompetent  to  its  preservation ;  to  a  witness 
who  would  be  incapable,  inefficient,  useless.     For,  if  this  keeper  per- 
mitted the  adulteration  of  the  deposit,  how  should  it  become  purified? 
If  this  witness  could  testify  a  falsehood,  where  would  be  our  security 
for  the  knowledge  of  truth?     It  inevitably  results,  that  we  can  have 
no  certainty  of  the  identity,  the  integrity  and  the  purity  of  the  sacred 
books,  except  from  our  certainty  of  the  infallible  fidelity  of  the  keeper, 
and  the  infallible  accuracy  and  honesty  of  the  witness.     Thus,  Reverend 
Sir,  I  am  extremely  happy  to  find  you  and  I  are  fully  agreed,  that  we 
must  depend  upon  the  infallibility  of  the  Church  for  the  authenticity  anrl 
accuracy  of  the  present  copies  of  that  Bible,  whose  authority  does  not 
spring  from  the  high  power  of  the  trusty  keeper  and  infallible  witness, 
which  has  preserved  the  sacred  deposit,  but  from  the  supreme  power  and 
dominion  of  the  great  God,  who  gave  these  works  to  the  care  and  keeping 
of  the  infallible  Church.     Of  course.  Reverend  Sir,  we  will  also  agree, 
that  the  Church  so  commissioned,  must  have  been  that  which  was  origin- 
ally in  existence,  and  spread  through  all  nations,  having  but  one  doctrine, 
not  contradictions  of  opinion,   and  which  through  all  ages  continued 
her  regular  succession  and  unbroken  integrity,  and  that  the  commission 
could  not  be  communicated  to  any  portion,  however  numerous,  or  re- 
spectable, which  in  any  nation  broke  away  from  this  Church,  separat- 
ing from  her  communion,  opposing  her  authority,  vilifying  her  officers, 
decrying  her  practices,   and  charging  her  with  being  a  faithless   and 
traitorous  keeper  of  the  divine  records,  and  a  lying  witness,  testifying 
that  God  gave  to  her  keeping,  books  which  he  never  ordained  her  to 
keep.     To  suppose,  the  great  Church  of  all  nations,  which  had  been 
originally  established  the  keeper  and  the  witness,  which  you  so  properly 
point  out,  and  to  suppose  that  during  eight  hundred  years  and  upwards, 
she  was  thus  unfaithful,  as  your  book  of  homilies  asserts,  would  destroy 
the  principle  you  lay  do\^Ti,  and  would  establish  against  the  eternal 
God,  ignorance,  want  of  power,  or  want  of  care,  for  the  preservation 
of  truth.     Of  course,  Reverend  Sir,  you  will  not  make  such  blasphemous 
charges;  you  would  prefer  holding  to  your  OAvn  principles,  "Let  then 
the  Church  be  the  witness  and  keeper  of  Holy  Writ;  for  so  God  hath 
ordained. ' ' 


two        JUDICIAL   OFFICE   OF   THE   CHURCH        201 

"We  now  come  to  another,  and  a  very  important  topic.  We  have 
before  seen,  that  even  when  the  Church  gives  to  us  the  sacred  volume, 
and  by  reason  of  her  divine  commission,  we  are  infallibly  certain  that 
what  we  read  is  truly  the  sacred  treasure  of  divine  truth,  still,  even 
with  the  aid  of  enlightened  reason,  and  all  the  other  circumstances  of 
spiritual  preparation  and  biblical  investigation,  equally  honest  persons 
diligently  inquiring,  "What  is  the  doctrine  that  God  teaches,"  can  not 
agree  as  to  the  fact,  but  actually  contradict  each  other.  We  consulted 
the  Saints  of  the  early  ages,  but  as  they  were  not  infallible,  though  their 
opinions  deserved  respect,  we  are  not  bound  to  be  led  by  them.  In  all 
this,  Reverend  Sir,  you  and  I  are  perfectly  agreed.  I  agree  with  you 
in  your  assertions :  ' '  Their  testimony  to  facts,  we  deem  it  reasonabl-^ 
to  receive."  "We  must  suffer  the  Saints  of  the  first  ages,  to  declare 
what  form  of  doctrine  had  been  delivered  to  them;  what  was  generally 
believed  and  practised  in  their  day;  and  the  natural  presumption  will 
be,  that  this  belief  and  this  practice  were  derived  from  the  Apostles." 
"Their  testimony  as  to  facts,  rests  upon  the  basis  of  their  unimpeached 
honesty  and  actual  observation,  and  consequently  may  not  be  consis- 
tently rejected."  In  all  this  I  agree  fully  with  you;  I  find  them  testify, 
that  controversies  of  faith  arose,  that  is,  that  several  persons  interpreted 
the  Scripture,  so  as  to  say,  that  it  contained  a  special  doctrine,  whilst 
others,  equally  honest,  contradicted  them  and  said,  that  it  did  not  con- 
tain that  doctrine,  but  that  it  contained  exactly  what  contradicted  it. 
Thus  you,  I  suppose  would  say,  that  the  holy  Scripture  contained  the 
doctrine  of  the  divinity  of  our  blessed  Saviour,  [while]  your  confrere 
in  the  ministry,  the  Reverend  Mr.  Whitaker,  with  equally  honest  pur- 
pose asserted,  that  it  contained  the  doctrine,  that  our  blessed  Lord  was 
not  God.  You  said,  it  plainly  contained  the  doctrine,  that  bishops  and 
priests  are  different  orders,  and  your  confrere.  Rev.  Mr.  Moderwell  said, 
it  contained  the  very  contradictory  doctrine.  Such  differences  have  oc- 
curred in  the  early  ages ;  controversies  arose :  were  all  those  contradic- 
tions contained  in  the  Book?  Impossible!  How  shall  we  know  its 
meaning?  You  tell  us,  Reverend  Sir,  "Let  her,  that  is,  the  Church, 
have  authority  to  judge  and  determine  in  controversies  of  faith."  Had 
you  stopped  here,  we  would  still  be  fully  agreed,  but  I  cannot  agree  with 
you  in  what  you  have  added ;  for  I  do  not  like  to  add  glaring  inconsis- 
tencies and  palpable  contradictions  to  my  other  faults. 

As  these.  Reverend  Sir,  are  strong  expressions,  and  such  as  ought 
not  to  be  used  without  very  good  cause,  I  feel  myself  bound  to  justify 
them.  It  is  impossible  for  me  to  do  so  in  the  compass  of  this  letter, 
but  I  shall  make  some  preparation  for  my  next,  by  giving  here  what  I 


202  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


conceive  to  be  the  plain  meaning  of  that  phrase,  in  the  use  of  which  we 
are  agi'eed. 

We  found  that  God  bestowed  upon  the  Church  authority  to  be  th<3 
keeper  and  the  witness  of  Holy  Writ.  This  Writ  contains  His  doctrine, 
which  He  requires  man  to  believe;  the  firm  conscientious  belief  of  this 
doctrine  is  faith;  faith  is  a  mental  act,  not  a  mere  oral  declaration;  a 
declaration  of  belief,  contrary  to  mental  conviction,  is  an  act  of  hypoc- 
risy, which  is  irreligious  and  displeasing  to  God,  and  can  not  therefore 
ever  be  pleasing  to  Him,  or  received  by  Him ;  and  no  man  who  makes 
such  a  profession  can  be  honest,  because,  in  making  it  he  solemnly  asserts 
w^hat  is  not  the  fact. 

Faith  is  the  belief  of  what  God  has  revealed;  what  the  Bible  con- 
tains has  been  revealed  by  Him;  two  persons  differ  as  to  the  doctrine 
which  it  contains;  this  is  a  controversy  of  faith.  How  is  it  to  be  ter- 
minated? That  is,  in  other  words,  how  are  we  to  know  what  is  the  con- 
tained doctrine?  You  tell  us,  "let  the  Church  have  authority  to  judge 
and  to  determine."  Authority  is  power  properly  derived  to  do  some 
act:  the  act  in  this  place  is,  after  examination  to  form  a  judgment; 
the  judgment  is,  to  assert  and  to  testify  which  is  the  doctrine  revealed 
by  God,  or  contained  in  the  Book ;  and  to  determine  that,  is  to  put  an 
end  to  the  controversy,  by  removing  the  doubt  which  existed :  that  doubt 
can  not  be  removed,  but  by  giving  certainty ;  certainty  can  be  given  only 
by  creating  e^ndence  of  truth;  evidence  of  truth,  in  this  case,  is  clear, 
infallible,  certain  evidence,  as  to  what  doctrine  revealed  by  God  is  con- 
tained in  that  passage  or  in  that  book.  Thus,  if  the  Church  is  to  have 
such  authority,  she  must  have  powder  properly  derived  to  her,  to  do  those 
acts ;  such  power  can  be  properly  derived  to  her  only  from  one  source, 
which  is  the  Diety  himself.  Therefore,  unless  God  himself  has  given 
to  her  power  to  decide  with  infallible  certainty  what  is  the  doctrine  which 
God  has  revealed  in  that  book,  or  that  passage,  she  can  have  no  authority 
to  judge  and  to  determine  in  controversies  of  faith.  And  if  she  has  no 
such  power,  we  have  no  mode  of  knowing  with  certainty  what  God  has 
taught ;  because,  no  other  body  or  individual  lays  claim  to  this  authority 
except  herself,  and  if  her  claim  is  unfounded,  we  have  no  ground  of 
certainty,  because  all  are  liable  to  error :  and  God  requires  us  to  believe 
with  a  firm  faith  what  He  teaches,  and  yet  leaves  us  without  any  certain 
mode  of  ascertaining  what  w^e  are  to  believe.  Of  course,  it  would  be 
preposterous  to  assert,  that  he  requires  of  us  to  be  hypocrites,  by  pro- 
fessing to  believe,  what  we  may  or  may  not  believe:  and  it  would  be 
equally  preposterous  to  assert  that  his  Church  could  have  a  power  to 
judge  and  to  determine  what  he  has  taught,  and  yet  we  not  be  bound  in 


two        JUDICIAL  OFFICE   OF   THE   CHURCH        203 

conscience  mentally  to  believe  what  the  tribunal  to  which  he  gave  the 
authority  had  proposed  to  us  as  being  revealed  by  him. 
I  am,  Reverend  Sir,  yours,  and  so  forth, 

A  Roman  Catholic. 


LETTER  VI. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Aug.  28,  1826. 
To  the  Rev.  Hugh  Smith,  A.M., 

Bev.  Sir: — In  my  last  I  agreed  with  you  in  saying,  "Let  then  the 
Church  be  the  witness  and  keeper  of  Holy  Writ ;  for  so  God  hath  ordain- 
ed.    Let  her  have  authority  to  judge  and  determine  in  controversies  of 
faith. ' '    We  saw,  Reverend  Sir,  if  she  had  such  authority,  it  must  have 
been  derived  from  God,  and  must  bind  the  conscience  of  man ;  because  it 
would  be  folly  to  say  that  a  controversy  had  been  determined,  when 
the  parties  were  left  at  liberty  to  profess  what  they  pleased;  and  it 
would  be  irreligious  to  assert  that  God  could  bind  man  to  be  a  hypocrite, 
by  requiring  of  him  to  profess  the  belief  of  what  he  did  not  consci- 
entiously assent  to  be  truth.     The  Church  can  therefore  have  no  author- 
ity to  judge  and  to  determine  controversies  of  faith,  unless  her  decisions 
will  bind  the  consciences  of  her  members:  and  God  cannot  bind  any 
person  to  receive  and  to  obey  a  judgment  and  determination  of  a  tri- 
bunal which  might  as  easily  lead  man  to  error  as  to  truth;  if  God  then 
binds  man  to  obedience  he  must  himself  lead  the  tribunal  to  give  an 
infallibly  true  judgment ;  his  command  of  obedience  is  a  pledge  that  he 
will  so  direct ;  therefore  it  was,  that  in  my  last  I  wrote  that  you  must 
ultimately  come  to  maintain  the  infallibility  of  the  Church.     But  no; 
you  will  not:  for  you  immediately  add,  "not  that  absolute  authority 
which  is  predicated  upon  the  claim  of  infallibility."     Really,  Reverend 
Sir,  you  appear  to  me  to  wax  worse  in  your  contradictions,  because  you 
now  deny  what  you  before  asserted.     You  asserted  that  the   Church 
has  authority ;  now  you  say  she  is  not  to  have  that  authority  ' '  absolute. 
Good  Sir,  between  the  absolute  possession  of  just  power,  and  the  absolute 
want  of  just  power,  there  is  no  medium :  for  if  a  tribunal  has  power  to 
decide,  it  absolutely  has  the  power  of  decision:  and  if  the  tribunal  has 
not  absolute  power  of  decision,  it  has  no  power  to  judge  and  to  deter- 
mine.    I  will  allow  that  in  some  cases,  and  under  certain  conditions,  a 
tribunal  might  have  power,  and  in  all  other  cases,  and  when  those  con- 
ditions do  not  exist,  be  without  any  power.     In  this  case,  however,  there 
is  an  absolute  power,  so  far  as  it  goes,  or  there  is  none.     For  instance, 
the  Governor  of  Georgia  has  power,  in  case  he  thinks  a  man  unjustly 


204  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

condemned  to  death,  to  grant  him  a  respite  until  the  Legislature  shall 
decide  upon  his  case;  thus  he  has  the  absolute  power  of  the  respite, 
though  not  the  absolute  power  of  liberating  the  condemned;  but  if  the 
Legislature  shall  decide  upon  pardoning  the  convict,  then  the  Governor 
has  the  absolute  power  of  liberating  him  altogether.  Where  there  is 
authority,  it  is  absolute  to  its  extent ;  where  it  is  not  absolute,  there  is 
no  authority.  Your  assertion  that  the  Church  has  authority  to  judge 
and  to  determine,  but  that  this  is  not  an  authority  which  is  absolute,  is 
to  me  unintelligible.  ' '  Not  that  authority  which  would  fetter  the  minds 
and  the  consciences  of  her  members."  If  it  does  not  bind  the  mind, 
it  is  no  authority  regarding  faith,  for  faith  is  a  mental  act,  not  an  exter- 
nal profession.  Let  us  suppose  a  case.  The  Church  is  about  to  decide 
a  controversy  of  faith:  you  and  your  friend,  Reverend  Mr.  Whitaker, 
appear  before  her.  You  both  say  she  has  authority  to  judge  and  to 
determine;  that  is,  you  say,  "Our  Saviour  taught  that  he  was  co-equal 
God  with  his  Father."  Reverend  Mr.  W.  says,  "Our  blessed  Saviour 
taught  that  he  w^as  not  co-equal  God  with  his  Father."  You  both  state 
your  reasons:  the  Church  decides  that  she  has  full  evidence  that  the 
Saviour  taught  your  proposition.  You  call  upon  Mr.  "Whitaker  to  sub- 
mit. He  answers,  "I  cannot,  for  this  would  be  giving  the  Church 
authority  to  fetter  the  mind  and  conscience."  If  he  may  lawfully  thus 
answer,  of  what  value  is  her  authority  to  judge  and  to  decide  your 
controversy  ?  Reverend  Sir,  it  would  be  much  better  to  do  as  Mr.  "Whita- 
ker does,  to  deny  altogether  the  existence  of  any  ecclesiastical  tribunal, 
than  to  be  thus  increasing  your  difficulties,  and  making  your  positions 
ridiculous.  If  she  has  authority,  say  so,  and  obey  it;  if  she  has  not, 
boldly  say  so  at  once,  but  never  speak  again  of  such  a  thing  as  an 
ecclesiastical  tribunal. 

But  at  least,  though  she  has  not  authority  to  fetter  Mr.  Whitaker 's 
mind  and  conscience,  he  ought  to  pay  external  respect  to  a  constituted 
tribunal  by  giving  an  open  profession  of  doctrine,  though  his  mind  and 
his  conscience  may  still  preserve  freedom  and  remain  unfettered.  I 
differ  indeed  very  widely  from  your  Reverend  confrere  in  doctrine  and 
in  discipline;  and  upon  this  point  he  needs  not  my  advice;  but  that 
advice  would  be,  never  to  be  guilty  of  hypocrisy  by  professing  to  belong 
to  a  body  which  adopts  a  code  of  doctrine  that  he  does  not  in  his  con- 
science believe  to  be  true. 

As  to  fettering  the  word  of  God,  it  is  an  expression  which.  Rev- 
erend Sir,  I  did  not  expect  from  you,  nor  from  any  reasonable  person. 
How  many  meanings  has  the  word  of  God  ?  Has  it  more  than  one  ?  If 
the  Saviour  says,  ' '  This  is  my  body, ' '  the  phrase  has  some  definite  mean- 


two        JUDICIAL  OFFICE   OF   THE   CHURCH        205 

ing.  When  I  have  fully  ascertained  what  that  meaning  is,  do  I  fetter 
God's  word  by  saying,  "He  meant  what  he  said?"  I  really  blush,  Sir, 
whilst  I  write,  and  for  the  first  moment  since  I  took  up  my  pen  to  address 
you,  I  feel  almost  indignant  when  I  find  it  sought  to  degrade  the  eternal 
word  of  the  Most  High  God,  by  assimilating  it  to  the  vile  production  of 
some  pettifogging  attorney,  who,  anxious  to  cheat,  strives  to  hide  the 
meaning  of  his  phrases  in  ambiguous  expressions,  that  he  may  escape 
being  fettered  to  an  inconvenient  construction.  Sir,  the  word  of  God  has 
but  one  meaning,  and  that  meaning  is  eternal  truth,  and  its  perfection 
would  be  fettering  the  expression  to  the  display  of  that  and  only  that ;  to 
effect  this.  Sir,  would  be  to  rid  the  world  of  those  evils  of  which  you 
affected  to  complain  when  you  wrote. 

"Had  it  been  always  thus  interpreted,  notwithstanding  the  varieties 
in  the  structure  of  the  human  mind,  the  Christian  world  would  not 
have  been  called  to  witness  so  many  divisions  and  sub-divisions,  modi- 
fications and  re-modifications  of  doctrinal  incorrectness.  Nor  would  the 
Bible  itself  have  been  insulted,  by  being  given  as  the  authority  for  so 
much  that  is  absurd  in  theory,  or  demoralizing  in  practical  tendency." 

There  is  no  species  of  science,  the  acquisition  of  which  does  not 
fetter  the  mind  by  restricting  it  to  what  is  discovered  to  be  truth.  Such 
fettering  is  a  blessing.  There  is.  Sir,  a  species  of  pulpit-talk  sometimes, 
indeed  too  often,  mistaken  for  preaching  and  substituted  therefor,  which 
gives  words  without  ideas;  but  it  is  worse  than  nonsense,  because  it 
deludes  by  the  very  sound  having  a  semblance  to  reason:  there  is  one 
excuse  for  him  who  uses  it :  he  might  himself  be  the  dupe  of  the  simili- 
tude. I  should  regret.  Sir,  to  charge  you  with  a  deliberate  intention  to 
deceive  your  hearers,  when  you  asserted  that  to  fix  the  meaning  which 
God  intended  his  word  should  convey,  would  be  what  bears  the  appear- 
ance of  a  crime  in  the  expression;  "fettering  the  word  of  God."  Sir, 
the  Council  of  Nice  fettered  it,  when  they  decided  that  those  texts  which 
Arius  adduced  to  prove  that  the  Son  was  not  consubstantial  to  the 
Father,  did  not  mean  what  he  taught;  the  Council  of  Ephesus  fettered 
it,  when  they  decided  that  the  texts  which  Nestorius  adduced  to  prove 
that  there  were  two  persons  in  Christ,  did  not  mean  what  he  taught; 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon  fettered  it,  when  they  decided  that  the  texts 
which  Eutyches  adduced  to  prove  that  there  was  only  one  nature  in 
Christ,  did  not  mean  what  he  taught;  the  first  Council  of  Jerusalem 
fettered  it,  when  they  decided  that  the  texts  adduced  to  prove  the  neces- 
sity of  circumcision  in  Christianity,  did  not  mean  what  some  of  the  very 
first  Christians  contended  was  their  meaning;  the  blessed  Saviour  him- 
self fettered  it,  when  he  taught  the  disciples  upon  the  mountain,  and  on 


206  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

a  thousand  other  occasions.  Explanation  of  the  true  meaning  of  any 
law  is  not  fettering  the  law,  but  applying  it  to  its  proper  purpose,  after 
having  pointed  out  what  that  purpose  is.  Teaching  mankind  the  law 
of  God,  and  explaining  precisely  what  he  has  revealed,  is  not  fettering 
the  mind,  but  is  enlightening  and  instructing  and  freeing  the  mind  from 
the  fetters  of  ignorance.  Do  not,  then.  Reverend  Sir,  imagine  that  be- 
cause you  have  culled  from  some  former  writers,  of  the  modern  English 
Church,  a  few  of  their  phrases,  the  people  of  America  will  be  led  to 
imagine  that  the  echo  of  delusive  and  refuted  jargon  contains  sound 
reason.  If  the  Church  has  authority  to  decide  controversies  of  faith, 
that  authority  must  be  absolute,  and  must  be  founded  upon  her  posses- 
sion of  a  power  to  tell  us  with  certainty  what  God  has  revealed;  the 
instant  man  is  taught  Avith  certainty  what  God  has  revealed,  that  moment 
his  conscience  is  bound,  in  virtue  of  God's  dominion  only,  it  is  true,  but 
by  the  judicial  testimony  of  the  Church.  So  when  I  bow  to  the  decision 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State,  I  do  it,  not  because  the  judges  have 
any  inherent  power  of  their  own  to  bind  me  to  obedience,  but  because 
I  owe  that  obedience  to  the  State,  which  commissioned  the  court  to  give 
me  judicial  testimony,  as  to  what  is  the  meaning  of  this  passage  of  its 
law.  The  court  possesses  no  odious  power  to  fetter  me  or  to  fetter  the 
law,  but  it  has  a  wholesome  and  necessary  authority  to  judge  and  to 
determine  what  is  that  law  which  is  superior  to  the  court  and  to  the 
suitor:  and  it  would  be  a  strange  plea  to  set  up,  that  the  court  had 
authority  to  decide,  but  not  to  decide  with  certainty,  not  to  fetter  men 
nor  the  law,  but  still  to  decide. 

But  you  will  tell  me  that  you  do  not  contradict  yourself,  because 
you  allow  the  Church  "that  authority  which,  resting  on  the  possession 
of  concentrated  wisdom  and  piety,  and  upon  the  peculiar  benediction  of 
her  divine  founder  and  head,  is  all  that  she  arrogates  to  herself,  inducing 
her  not  to  go  beyond  the  word  of  the  Lord  to  do  either  less  or  more." 
If  I  could  know  what  you  mean,  I  should  be  able  in  a  word  to  dispatch 
your  whole  phrase.  This  quotation  of  yours,  in  my  apprehension,  should 
mean  that  the  Church  has  the  power  of  giving  an  infallibly  correct 
judgment — ^yet  that  cannot  be  your  meaning,  because  you  said  before, 
"not  that  absolute  authority  which  is  predicated  on  the  claim  of  infal- 
libility. ' '  You  say  here,  the  authority  of  the  Church  in  her  decisions  in 
controversies  of  faith,  is  to  judge  and  determine,  not  going  beyond  the 
word  of  God  either  for  less;  that  is,  giving  us  the  doctrines  whole  and 
entire;  so  that  we  do  not  get  less  than  the  revelation  and  law  of  God; 
nor  more ;  so  that  we  get  no  more  than  the  law  of  God.  Then,  if  we  get 
neither  less  nor  more,  we  must  get  precisely  the  law  of  God.     If  she  has 


two        JUDICIAL   OFFICE   OF   THE   CHURCH        207 

got  a  peculiar  benediction  of  God  for  this  purpose,  that  peculiar  bene- 
diction must  be  infallibly  efficacious,  and  so  I  shall  by  her  testimonial 
judgment  and  determination,  get  precisely  and  infallibly  the  whole  word 
or  revelation  of  the  Lord,  neither  more  or  less.  If  this  is  not  authority 
predicated  upon  infallibility,  I  know  not  what  it  is:  and  if  it  be  not,  I 
have  no  certainty,  because  if  she  is  not  infallible  she  may  err;  and  if 
she  may  err,  I  cannot  be  certain  but  she  does  actually  err  in  this  special 
instance.  But  you  will  ask,  has  she  not  God's  peculiar  benediction?  I 
answer,  by  asking :  will  it  infallibly  lead  her  to  truth  ?  If  it  will,  I  have 
certainty,  and  her  authority  is  predicated  on  infallibility.  If  it  will 
not,  I  have  no  certainty,  and  bereft  of  that,  I  can  have  no  faith,  because 
faith  is  founded  upon  certain  and  not  upon  probably  true  testimony. 
It  would  be  a  novel  mode,  Reverend  Sir,  of  commencing  a  Christian 
creed,  to  say:  "I  believe  it  is  highly  probable  that  there  is  one  God. 
I  believe  that  it  is  hightly  probable  that  his  only  Son  became  man;  I 
believe  it  is  extremely  probable  he  died  on  the  cross.  I  believe  it  is  very 
likely,  indeed  I  am  almost  certain,  that  he  will  reward  the  good  and 
punish  the  wicked."  No,  Sir,  there  can  be  no  reasonable  faith  except 
upon  the  basis  of  infallible  certainty;  and  the  infallible  certainty  that 
the  Church  will  give  us  the  doctrine  of  God,  rests  upon  her  concentrated 
wisdom  and  piety,  uniting  the  testimony  of  such  a  host  so  congregated 
from  every  quarter  of  the  globe,  as  renders  it  impossible  that  they  should 
either  he  deceived  as  to  what  common  doctrine  received  from 
Christ  was  given  by  the  founders  of  all  the  churches  to  the  nations 
of  the  earth,  and  makes  it  impossible  that  they  should  conspire 
to  corrupt  that  testimony.  But,  Reverend  Sir,  one  would  imagine 
you  should  be  extremely  cautious  in  unfolding  the  record  of  this 
tribunal,  because  the  date  of  your  change  and  all  its  circumstances,  and 
the  testimony  against  it  are  indelibly  clear  upon  it.  The  second  ground 
is,  the  peculiar  benediction  and  promise  to  which  you  allude ;  but  which 
certainly,  if  made,  places  you  in  no  very  enviable  a  station,  because  to 
justify  yourself,  you  must  prove  that  the  benediction  was  inefficacious, 
and  that  the  divine  promise  was  forgotten;  because  unless  the  Church 
erred  in  her  doctrine,  you  are  opposed  to  God's  truth.  No  wonder  then 
that  you  instinctively  shrink  back  and  throw  your  old  shield  before  you : 
' '  Give  her  less  than  this,  and  you  make  her  a  mere  nullity ;  give  her  more 
than  this,  and  then  you  make  the  Bible  the  mere  creature  of  her  will." 
As  for  the  figure  of  "magnifying  the  ark  above  the  law  and  the  testi- 
mony which  it  enshrines,"  I  do  not  understand  it,  unless  you  mean  one 
of  two  things,  neither  of  which,  even  in  your  own  statement,  is  true; 
viz.  either  that  the  Church  has  no  more  to  do  with  the  Bible  than  has  a 


208  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


box  in  which  it  is  kept— or  that  the  dead  ark  had  authority  to  judge  and 
to  determine  controversies  of  faith,  for  which  purpose  it  possessed  con- 
centrated wisdom  and  piety,  and  had  received  a  peculiar  benediction 
from  God.  You  have  therefore  retreated  to  final  unintelligibility,  from 
multiplied  contradiction.     Here,  at  least  from  me,  you  may  be  secure. 

And  now  in  sober  sadness  I  ask  you,  have  you  made  one  step  towards 
removing  the  appalling  difficulty  which  has  met  you  at  every  turn? 
* '  But  when  we  leave  this  general  ground ;  when  we  ask  what  the  faith  of 
the  Gospel  is  in  all  its  parts,  coincidence  of  sentiment  is  at  an  end,  and 
many  contradictory  replies  meet  our  ear.     How  then  are  we  to  choose 
amidst  all  these  conflicting  opinions  of  men?     How  is  the  faith  of  the 
Gospel  to  be  more  minutely  ascertained?"     You  told  us  enlightened 
reason  would  lead  us  to  knowledge ;  then  you  said  that  even  if  we  found 
it,  we  still  should  not  agree.     You  next  answered,  that  primitive  antiq- 
uity wovild  illustrate  those  things  not  clearly  revealed  in  the  book.     The 
saints  would  tell  us  what  doctrines  they  derived  from  the  Apostles :  this 
was  our  tradition ;  of  course  you  ran  away  from  [it,]  telling  us  that  you 
only  sent  us  to  them  for  the  purpose  of  knowing  what  they  practised. 
The  Bible  was  to  give  doctrine.     Then  you  told  us  the   Church  had 
authority  to  decide  in  controversies  of  faith.     But  you  soon  denied  this, 
for  you  told  us  that  her  decisions  should  not  fetter  our  minds  nor  fetter 
the  word  of  God.     Still  you  told  us  that  she  had  wisdom  and  piety  and 
God's  peculiar  blessing,  to  establish  her  authority;  and  yet  though  so 
established,  she  may  err,  although  she  could  not  give  us  more  than  the 
word  of  the  Lord,  nor  less  than  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  yet,  giving 
precisely  the  word  of  the  Lord,  she  might  err.     The  whole  conclusion 
then  seems  by  some  magic  brought  to  this,  that  by  the  Avord  of  the  Lord 
is  meant  the  Bible.     The  old  question  then  recurs: — suppose  I  believe 
this  to  be  God's  book,  how  shall  I  know  its  meaning  where  there  are  so 
many  contradictory  explanations  ?     And  to  this.  Sir,  you  give  no  answer. 
By  what  right  then.  Reverend  Sir,  do  you  presume  to  call  me  erroneous 
in  my  interpretation  of  that  book  ?     By  what  right,  Sir,  do  you  presume 
to  tell  Mr.  Moderwell  or  Mr.  Whitaker,  or  any  other  human  being,  that 
you  or  your  society  are  right,  and  that  any  one  who  differs  from  you 
is  wrong?     I  differ.  Sir,  from  Mr.  Whitaker 's  explanations  of  the  sacred 
volume,  as  much  probably  as  does  any  other  human  being.     I  adore 
the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost  with  the  self-same  homage  as  I  do  the  Father : 
I  believe,  as  firmly  as  I  do  that  I  now  write,  that  he  who  was  crucified 
on  Calvary  was  the  eternal  God,  by  whom  all  things  were  made,  having 
a  body  and  soul  personally  united  to  his  divine  nature.     But  I  am  at 
as  perfect  a  loss  as  I  ever  was  in  my  life  to  know  how,  when  :\Ir.  Whita- 


two        JUDICIAL   OFFICE   OF   THE   CHURCH        209 

ker  denies  that  those  propositions  are  contained  in  the  Bible,  you  can 
prove  with  certainty  that  they  are.  You  adduce  texts ;  and  he  adduces 
texts  in  contradiction  to  you.  You  say  he  mistakes;  he  charges  the 
mistake  upon  you.  You  say  that  the  Church  in  the  first  ages  explained 
them  as  you  do,  and  that  you  therefore  must  be  right.  He  asks  you 
whether  the  Church  was  then  infallible  in  her  explanations:  you  say, 
"No,  she  was  liable  to  error."  He  says  that  she  erred  in  this  explana- 
tion if  she  gave  it.  Who  is  now  to  decide  it  between  you?  "Let  the 
Church  have  authority  to  decide  this  controversy,"  you  say.  He  an- 
swers, "But  you  said  she  was  not  infallible  and  had  no  authority  to 
fetter  God's  word."  I  have  read  some  very  fine  sounding  works  which 
would  decide  against  you,  upon  the  very  ground  that  you  followed  the 
opinion  of  the  Church  in  those  early  ages ;  because  the  blow-pipe  had  not 
as  yet  been  invented,  nor  was  there  a  sufficient  number  of  Greek  names 
given  to  plants  and  flowers;  science  was  then  only  in  its  embryo — 
America  had  not  been  discovered,  and  therefore  the  Apostles  could  not 
testify  the  doctrines  of  the  Saviour,  nor  could  this  testimony  have  been 
secured  and  perpetuated,  for  the  mariner's  compass  was  not  constructed, 
neither  gun-powder  nor  steam-engines  were  used;  Luther  had  not  writ- 
ten, nor  were  the  articles  of  the  English  Protestant  Church  enacted  by 
proper  authority.  Reverend  Sir,  I  am  tired,  and  so  I  suspect  are  you ; 
and  so  I  fear  are  my  readers.  I  trust  when  you  next  hold  a  convention  of 
your  Church,  you  will  have  the  goodness  to  leave  us  unmolested;  and 
I  shall  on  my  part  cease  to  subscribe  myself. 

Yours,  and  so  forth, 

A  Roman  Catholic. 


THE  VICIOUS   CIRCLE 

[The  following  brief  critique  upon  a  sophism  frequently  made  use 
of  against  the  Catholic  argument,  is  extracted  from  the  United  States 
Catholic  Miscellany,  for  1824.] 

Dr.  Watts,  in  his  Treatise  of  Logic,  and  other  writers  of  his  descrip- 
tion, charge  Roman  Catholics  with  gross  and  palpable  absurdity  in  their 
arguments,  and  exemplify  the  sophism  of  the  Vicious  Circle,  by  reference 
to  the  arguments  of  Catholics,  viz. 

''A  vicious  circle  is  when  two  propositions,  equally  uncertain,  are 
used  to  prove  each  other.  Thus  Papists  prove  the  authority  of  the  Scrip- 
tures by  the  infallibility  of  their  Church,  and  then  prove  the  infallibility 
of  their  Church  from  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures." 

To  a  school-boy  this  appears  a  formidable  barrier  against  Popery, 
and  many  a  sage  professor  has  learnedly  declaimed  against  Popish 
absurdity,  in  the  detail  of  the  exemplification.  Stamped  with  the  au- 
thority of  a  dictum  of  the  schools,  the  example  passes  with  equal  cur- 
rency as  the  definition. 

Let  us  meet  the  mighty  adversary.  To  do  so  we  must  take  the  fol- 
lowing three  several  cases. 

Case  1.  A  Papist  argues  with  a  person  who  believes  in  the  authority 
of  the  Scriptures,  but  who  does  not  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  the  infal- 
libility of  the  Church.  No  one  will  tell  us  that  the  said  Papist  is  guilty 
of  bad  logic  and  is  a  sophist,  when  he  thus  addresses  such  a  person — 
''Sir,  you  acknowledge  this  book  to  be  authority,  I  shall  shew  you  from 
several  passages  thereof,  that  the  Church  is  infallible."  This  is  not  a 
vicious  circle,  for  there  is  no  question  between  them  of  the  authority  of 
the  Scripture,  and  to  such  a  person  the  Papist  does  not  prove  the  author- 
ity of  the  Scriptures,  by  the  infallibility  of  the  Church.  Hence,  in  this 
case,  there  is  no  vicious  circle,  for  if  he  prove  the  infallibility  of  the 
Church  from  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  he  only  proves  that  which 
has  been  questioned,  from  that  of  which  there  was  no  question. 

Case  2,  A  Papist  argues  with  a  person  who  acknowledges  the  infal- 
libility of  the  Church,  but  questions  and  doubts  the  authority  of  certain 
Books.  No  one  can  say  it  would  be  sophistry  to  address  such  a  person 
in  these  words — ''Sir,  you  allow  the  body  of  true  believers,  that  is  the 


two  THE   VICIOUS   CIRCLE  211 

Church,  does  certainly  know  what  God  has  revealed,  and  can  point  out 
with  infallible  certainty  the  books  which  do  contain  his  revelations. 
Sir,  that  Church  testifies  to  you  that  these  books  do  contain  his  revela- 
tion. Therefore,  by  your  principle,  you  must  receive  these  books  as  the 
word  of  God." 

This  certainly  is  not  proving  one  questionable  proposition  by  an- 
other, and  then  proving  the  second  by  the  first.  But  it  is  proving  that 
which  has  been  questioned  and  of  which  there  was  doubt,  by  that  of 
which  there  was  no  doubt.     This  is  no  sophistry. 

Case  3.  A  Papist  argues  with  a  person  who  does  not  believe  either 
in  the  infallibility  of  the  Church  or  in  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures. 
In  this  case  he  cannot  assume  either  as  a  principle.  What  is  he  to  do? 
What  would  a  Protestant  do?  The  Catholic  can  do  at  least  as  much. 
The  Protestant  says  that  without  the  authority  of  an  infallible  Church 
he  can  prove  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures.  The  same  arguments 
will,  in  the  mouth  of  a  Catholic,  lead  to  the  same  conclusion.  Therefore, 
if  it  be  possible  for  the  Protestant,  it  is  possible  for  the  Catholic — thero 
fore  the  Catholic  needs  not  the  infallibility  of  the  Church,  to  do  what 
his  neighbor  can  do  without  it. 

Having  proved  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures  thus,  the  Catholic 
may  next  proceed  upon  what  he  has  proved,  now  assuming  as  a  principle 
that  of  which  there  can  be  no  doubt.  Thus  we  are  brought  to  case  1, 
in  which  there  is  no  sophism. 

Or  the  Catholic  may  find,  without  the  authority  of  the  Scripture, 
reasons  to  convince  a  person,  that  if  God  speaks  he  must  establish  some 
mode  by  which  man  may  infallibly  find  out  what  he  teaches;  and  next 
that  this  mode  is  by  receiving  the  testimony  of  the  great  body  of  the 
Church ;  and  thus  we  are  brought  to  case  2,  in  which  there  is  no  sophism. 
Thus,  whether  a  Catholic  or  Papist  argues  with  a  person  who  allows 
the  authority  of  Scripture,  but  does  not  allow  Church  infallibility;  or 
argues  with  a  person  who  allows  Church  infallibility,  but  does  not  allow 
Scriptural  authority ;  or  argues  with  a  person  who  does  not  allow  either ; 
he  proceeds  to  prove  both  points  without  sophistry:  he  does  not  argue 
in  a  vicious  circle — he  is  not  a  violator  of  the  rules  of  sound  sense  or 
good  logic — and  Dr.  Watts  and  his  imitators,  either  were  very  ignorant 
of  the  manner  in  which  Catholics  argue,  or  very  ignorant  of  what  is 
meant  by  the  sophism  of  a  Vicious  Circle — or  were  dishonest  men  who 
deceived  their  pupils  upon  an  important  subject,  and  who  bore  false 
testimony  against  the  best  and  most  numerous,  and  most  enlightened 
society  in  the  whole  world. 

We  leave  to  their  admirers  and  followers  their  choice  of  the  several 


212  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

portions  of  this  good  disjunctive  proposition,  and  we  trust  that  each  day 
will  add  new  lig:ht  to  the  intellect,  and  new  desires  to  the  will,  so  that 
true  knowledge  may  increase,  sophistry  be  detected  and  exposed,  and 
the  most  important  concerns  of  men  be  brought  more  closely  under  the 
eye  of  reason  and  the  regulation  of  correct  judgment. 

A  little  learning  is  a  dangerous  thing; 
Drink  deep,  or  taste  not  the  Pierian  spring. 
Those  shallow  draughts  intoxicate  the  brain; 
But  drinking  largely  sobers  us  again. 

Pope. 


CALUIVINIES  OF  J.  BLANCO  WHITE 

Letters  addressed  to  the  Roman  CatlioUcs  of  the  United 
States  of  North  America 

[From  the  United  States  Catholic  Miscellany  for  1826-8.] 

LETTER  I. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Sept.  4,  1826. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends, — I  am  a  native  of  Ireland,  but  a  citizen  of  America, 
and  of  course,  have  resided  during  several  years  in  this  Union.     I  am  a 
Roman  Catholic ;  and  one  of  the  principal  inducements  which  operated 
on  my  mind  in  preferring  this  to  any  other  part  of  the  world  was,  not 
merely  the  excellence  of  its  political  institutions,   but,   as  I   flattered 
myself,  the  absence  of  bigotry.     I  was  led  to  believe  that,  although  men 
differed  from  each  other  in  religion,  yet  when  there  was  no  profit  or 
preference  to  be  obtained  by  acrimony,  I  should  not  meet  with  any. 
I  was  also  led  to  think  the  American  mind  was  candidly  and  sincerely 
occupied  in  searching  after  truth;  and  that,  as  it  was  given  to  investi- 
gation, it  would  speedily  arrive  at  its  discovery.     I  must  confess,  that 
I  have  been  disabused  of  some  [part]  of  my  error.     I  found  that  there 
was  in  the  general  constitutions  of  most  of  the  States,  a  principle  which 
restrained  men  from  being  tyrants  over  the  consciences  of  their  neighbor, 
but  that  neither  law  nor  constitution  had  effected  what  I  now  find  can- 
not be  produced  by  mere  political  regulation — that  cordial  and  affection- 
ate feeling  which  is  the  result  of  true  charity  for  each  other,  amongst 
men  who  differ  in  religious  belief.     I  found  what  I  was  altogether  unpre- 
pared for ;  that,  in  many  of  our  States,  a  Roman  Catholic,  though  legally 
and  politically  upon  a  level  with  his  fellow-citiezns,  was  however  too 
often  looked  upon,  by  reason  of  his  religion,  as  in  some  degree  morally 
degraded.     I  found  that  it  was  by  no  means  considered  a  want  of  lib- 
erality, on  the  part  of  the  Protestants,  to  vilify  the  Catholic  religion, 
and  to  use  the  harshest  and  most  offensive  terms  when  designating  its 
practices;  but  that  if  a  Catholic  used  any  phrase  however  modified, 
which  even  insinuated  any  thing  derogatory  to  the  Protestant  religion, 
he  was  marked  out  as  a  shocking  bigot,  and  his  offence  was  unpardonable. 


214  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


The  newspapers,  I  perceived,  were  generally  stuffed  with  extracts  and 
articles  which  were  offensive  to  Catholics;  but  the  editors  were  very 
careful  not  to  bring  a  hornet's  nest  about  their  ears  by  inserting  a 
paragraph  offensive  to  any  Protestant  society.  I  had  frequent  oppor- 
tunities of  conversing  with  polite  and  well-informed  Protestant  gentle- 
men, and  they,  though  knowing  my  religion,  used  the  most  offensive 
phraseology  when  speaking  of  our  Church  or  our  institutions,  being,  I 
am  convinced,  totally  unconscious  that  the  language  which  they  used 
was  originally  constructed  to  offend  us.  They  spoke  to  me  of  the 
Romish  Church,  and  of  Popish  priests,  and  of  Romish  bishops,  and 
adoration  of  images,  as  undisguisedly  as  if  they  were  not  using  the  most 
insulting  language.  I  knew  they  meant  nothing  unkind;  I  had  abun- 
dant evidence  of  their  good  will ;  yet,  though  I  felt  that  it  would  be  indel- 
icate in  me  to  wound  them,  by  requesting  they  would  change  their 
phrases,  I  deemed  it  more  than  matter  of  curiosity  to  discover,  why  this 
language  was  used,  and  why  the  Catholic  was  undervalued. 

It  struck  me,  as  this  had  been  an  English  colony,  and  as  many  of 
the  gentlemen  whom  I  met  had  either  been  educated  in  England,  or 
under  English  teachers,  that  they  had  learned  also  some  of  the  English 
fabrications.  I  took  an  opportunity  of  asking  a  friend  of  this  description 
to  inform  me  in  sincerity  whether  he  thought  a  good  Roman  Catholic 
could  be  a  good  republican  citizen.  After  such  a  request  and  explanation 
as  made  him  feel  at  full  liberty,  he  very  candidly  told  me  that  he  did  not. 
I  followed  up  my  inqury,  and  soon  discovered  that  the  general  impression 
amongst  the  best  informed  citizens  of  the  Southern  States  was  altogether 
unfavorable  to  Catholics,  upon  the  principle  that  the  Catholic  religion 
must  produce  effects,  which  w^ould  be  fatal  to  our  state  of  society  and 
government.  So  far  from  condemning  those  gentlemen,  my  respect  for 
their  kindness  was  increased,  though  I  lamented  the  mistake  into  which 
they  had  fallen  as  to  our  tenets,  and  the  general  character  of  our  religion. 
And,  my  friends,  if  our  religion  was  what  they  were  led  to  believe  it 
was,  very  few,  if  any,  of  us  would  continue  in  the  communion  of  the 
Holy  See.  More  extended  travelling  gave  me  an  opportunity  of  making 
more  extensive  inquiry ;  and  every  where  in  twelve  of  our  States  where 
I  had  the  means  of  knowing  pretty  accurately  the  general  sentiment, 
I  have  no  doubt  now  upon  my  mind,  that,  as  a  body,  we  are  undervalued 
by  our  fellow-citizens ;  and  that  this  arises  not  from  any  bad  feeling  on 
their  part  generally  towards  us,  but  from  their  mistaking  our  character 
and  tenets.  I  believe  the  great  majority  are  well  disposed  to  meet  us 
with  cordial  affection,  but  I  fear  there  are  some  whose  interest  and  whose 
bigotry  urge  them  to  keep  us  estranged  from  each  other. 


two  CALUMNIESOFJ.   BLANCOWHITE  215 

Having  convinced  myself  of  the  truth  of  these  facts  which  I  have 
thus  stated,  my  next  inquiry  was  into  their  cause.  I  shall  give  you  my 
opinion  and  its  foundation.  I  have  not  hastily  formed  it;  nor  have  I 
an  unfriendly  feeling  towards  my  fellow-citizens.  These  States  were 
British  colonies,  now  little  more  than  half  a  century  ago.  In  every  one 
of  them  except  Pennsylvania,  the  penal  laws  against  Catholics  were  in 
full  force,  and  in  most  of  them  they  were  executed  with  unrelenting 
rigor.  In  Pennsylvania,  though  the  Catholic  was  not  legally  persecuted, 
he  existed  under  that  moral  degradation  which  resulted  as  well  from 
the  self-esteem  of  the  Quaker,  as  from  the  Protestant's  viewing  him  as 
his  inferior  in  the  mother  country  and  in  the  other  colonies.  Perhaps 
it  will  he  scarcely  a  digression  here  to  remark,  that  Pennsylvania  has 
been  amply  repaid  for  her  just  benevolence.  The  rapid  improvement  of 
that  State  has  been  generally  attributed  to  the  steady,  sober  industry  of 
the  Quakers ;  no  one  will  deny  that  they  are  the  prominent  figures  upon 
the  canvass,  and  they  not  only  will  bear  inspection,  but  at  distance  will 
appear  alone.  Yet  he  who  examines  closely,  will,  behind  their  large  coats, 
observe  that  much  of  the  back  scenery  is  concealed ;  he  will  also  discover, 
that  the  Irish  and  the  few  German  Catholics,  whom  their  friends  sent  to 
till  the  back  country,  are  found,  where  that  back  ground  is  visible,  to  be 
those  upon  whom  the  drudgery  devolved,  and  they  are  painted  busily  en- 
gaged at  the  plough  and  with  the  axe.  When  the  drum  called  forth  the 
colonists  to  battle,  the  Pennsylvania  line  was  consequently  found  to  be 
principally  composed  of  Irish  Catholics.  New  York  then  had  her  per- 
secuting law;  but  since  it  has  been  repealed,  the  Irish  Catholics  have 
wrought  her  up  into  wealth,  as  they  previously  did  Pennsylvania. 

I  shall  only  state  that,  at  the  period  of  the  Revolution,  the  Cath- 
olic was  by  British  policy,  by  British  contrivance,  by  British  example, 
and  by  British  law,  degraded  in  every  colony,  persecuted  in  all  but  one. 
The  feelings  of  nations  do  not  suddenly  or  very  quickly  subside,  much 
less  become  altogether  different.  Only  half  a  century  has  passed  awa}'' 
since  this  was  the  case,  and  it  could  hardly  be  expected  that  all  this 
feeling  could  be  forgotten  by  this  time.  Men  will  always  be  prone  to 
say,  there  must  have  been  some  good  cause  for  legal  oppression.  Do 
not  mistake  me;  I  do  not  intend  to  say,  that  the  excuse  will  ever  hold 
good  for  the  oppression  of  a  Protestant  by  a  Catholic,  or  if  so,  it  can 
only  be  in  Spain.  But  in  all  other  places,  it  is  but  reasonable,  some 
philosophers  say,  to  suppose  the  Catholic  gave  cause,  or  if  he  did  not, 
the  Protestant  thought  he  did,  which  is  equally  sufficient.  Now,  you 
and  I  probably  believe  that  no  cause  was  given ;  but  let  us  concede  that 
there  was  cause,  and  leave  to  those  who  made  and  executed  the  penal 


216  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


laws  to  settle  their  account  with  a  just  and  merciful  God.  I  think  we 
may  fairly  state  this  as  one  cause  of  the  present  dis-esteem  in  which  I 
believe  we  are  held  by  many  of  our  fellow-citizens;  it  operates  silently, 
imperceptibly,  but  efficaciously.  It  resolves  itself  into  this  soliloquy — 
"My  ancestors  were  obliged  by  circumstances  to  oppress  Catholics,  my 
ancestors  were  good,  they  could  not  be  guilty  of  cruelty  or  of  injustice; 
I  have  heard  them  say  there  was  good  cause;  for,  that  formerly  Cath- 
olics were  more  dangerous  than  those  of  the  present  day  are.  We  have 
relieved  them,  I  am  glad  of  it;  if  their  predecessors  had  been  as  good 
as  those  now,  the  harsh  laws  would  not  have  been  necessary;  but  still 
there  is  something  not  right  about  their  system."  In  such  a  w^ay  as  this 
does  a  good  heart  endeavor  to  indulge  its  feelings  of  affection  for  its 
family  and  for  its  fellow-citizens ;  for  the  fame  of  the  family  requires 
an  imputation  upon  the  Catholic,  and  we  are  naturally  the  sufferers. 

Thus  that  strongest  bias  to  which  the  human  mind  is  liable,  that 
bias  arising  from  affection  for  one's  kindred,  respect  for  the  cherished 
memory  of  one's  immediate  ancestors,  creates  in  good  and  amiable  minds, 
a  powerful   though  unsuspected  prejudice   against  us.     There   are  no 
minds  over  which  this  prejudice  has  a  more  extensive  and  a  better  estab- 
lished dominion  than  those  of  generous  and  amiable  females,  for  the  very 
excellence  of  their  disposition  leads  them  to  cherish  warmly  those  family 
attachments  from  which  it  springs.     This  will,  I  believe,  tend  greatly  to 
explain  what  I  have  frequently  observed  to  be  an  undoubted  fact,  and 
still  scarcely  to  be  otherwise  explained:  that  the  prejudices  against  us 
were  strongest  in  the  minds  of  those  ladies  who,  either  sprung  from  or 
were  connected  with  the  old  families  who,  under  the  British  rule,  held 
stations  or  offices  which  made  them,  in  some  way  or  other,  parties  to  the 
approval  or  execution  of  the  penal  laws.     That  such  is  the  fact  in  the 
old  country  and  in  this,  will  scarcely  be  questioned  by  those  w^ho  have 
had  an  opportunity  of  making  the  observation.     Yet  those  ladies  have 
the  very  best  dispositions  and  the  kindnest  hearts;  they  are  humane, 
generous,  and  affectionate;  but  their  family  affections  necessarily  hold 
the  first  place,  and  they  cannot  believe  that  their  fathers,  and  their 
uncles,  and  their  progenitors,  in  whom  they  have  found  so  many  good 
qualities,  could  be  persecutors   of  innocent  people;  there  must,  they 
think,  have  been  something  bad,  and  of  sufficient  criminality  in  the  Cath- 
olics of  that  day  to  have  provoked  this  oppression.     Let  the  practical 
error  be  only  once  in  existence.     Let  men  of  a  certain  standing  in  so- 
ciety be  in  the  habit  of  oppression,  and  it  becomes  a  necessary  conse- 
quence, that  the  most  amiable  portion  of  society  becomes  unconsciously 
the  preserver  of  prequdice,  and  indirectly  the  advocate  of  oppression. 


two  CALUMNIES   OF  J.   BLANCO   WHITE  217 

This  has  enabled  me  often  to  excuse  what  I  lamented,  and  solve  what 
would  be  otherwise  insoluble. 

Another  great  source  of  prejudice  arises  from  religious  feeling. 
Every  mind,  not  actually  infidel,  views  with  more  or  less  reverence  the 
edifice  for  public  worship ;  and  generally  the  mind  is  prepared  to  receive 
with  scarcely  a  suspicion  of  falsehood,  every  statement  made  in  this 
sacred  place  by  the  man  who  is  said  and  believed  to  bear  the  divine  com- 
mission, to  announce  saving  truths  to  the  world.  In  a  land  where  the 
law  prevented  the  existence  of  a  Catholic,  the  public  teacher  of  a  reli- 
gion created  upon  the  assumption,  that  the  Catholic  religion  was  grossly 
erroneous,  might  safely  indulge  in  what  statements  he  thought  proper; 
and  naturally  he  would  be  expected  occasionally  to  inveigh  against  those 
tenets,  to  destroy  whose  prevalence  was  the  object  of  his  ministry:  and 
to  his  declaration  there  would  be  no  reply.  That  such  was  the  fact, 
there  exists  the  most  superabundant  evidence.  It  was  not  only  natural, 
that  the  evils  which  were  said  to  spring  from  those  tenets  should  be 
pointed  out  and  emblazoned,  but  we  have  proof  that  they  were.  When 
a  century  had  thus  passed  away  in  repeated  inculcations  of  this  descrip- 
tion, by  the  ministers  of  God,  in  his  holy  place,  to  a  religious  people, 
can  we  wonder  at  the  existence  of  strong  prejudice  in  the  minds  of  that 
people,  not  only  against  the  tenets,  but  also  against  those  who  hold  them? 
Eeligious  prejudice  is  perhaps  stronger  than  that  of  family  affection; 
either  is  very  powerful ;  but  what  must  be  that  prejudice  which  is  a  com- 
bination and  a  sublimation  of  both? 

Had  those  holy  men  contented  themselves  with  the  mere  statement 
of  facts,  and  argued  fairly  from  those  facts,  we  should  have  had  no 
reason  to  complain.  But  such  was  not  the  case.  That  which  was  of 
dubious  or  equivocal  appearance  was,  against  every  rule  of  charity, 
exhibited  in  the  worse  manner  to  which  any  forced  construction  could 
drag  it;  and  when  there  were  not  sufficient  facts  to  make  out  the  case, 
the  defect  was  supplied  by  fiction.  I  do  not  charge  all  the  sacred  func- 
tionaries with  wilful  misconstruction  and  with  fabrication ;  because  there 
were  some  who  did  not  stoop  to  those  means.  Others  had  prejudices, 
and  were  misled — they  believed  what  they  taught.  Others  cared  not 
for  its  truth  or  falsehood,  but  did  what  was  in  the  routine  of  their  duty ; 
so  that  I  am  far  from  charging  the  body  at  large  as  fabricators,  though 
they  made  extensive  use  of  fabrications.  Thus,  misrepresentation  was 
superadded  to  prejudice;  and  all  obtained  the  name  of  religious  truth. 
Thus,  the  more  of  religious  zeal  existed,  the  more  extensively  was  preju- 
dice against  the  Catholic  spread  abroad.     Before  I  close  this  series  of 


218  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

letters,  I  shall  exhibit  to  you  such  authentic  facts  to  support  my  several 
assertions,  as  shall  well  warrant  every  conclusion  that  I   draw. 

Not  only  then  were  affection  and  religion,  the  two  finest  sources  of 
human  feeling,  poisoned  against  us,  but  history  was  outraged,  and  the 
unbiased  judgment  was  flagrantly  misled.  I  here  make  an  assertion, 
which  if  I  shall  not  succeed  in  proving  to  its  full  extent,  I  consent  that 
all  which  I  shall  address  to  you  in  vindication  of  our  character  to  our 
fellow  citizens  shall  be  valueless.  No  nation  ever  was  so  guilty  of  a 
systematic  destruction  of  the  truth  of  history  for  any  purpose,  as  was 
the  English  nation  in  order  to  create  prejudice  against  the  Catholics. 
I  would  be  content  to  put  myself  upon  a  trial  for  life  and  death,  upon 
the  issue  of  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  the  following  propositions,  after  1 
should  have  had  the  opportunity  of  proving  their  truth  before  an  im- 
partial, honest  American  jury.  The  British  Protestant  nation  has  been 
almost  continually  employed  in  destroying  the  truth  of  history  for  the 
purpose  of  bringing  obloquy  upon  the  Catholics ! !  The  Government 
aided  in  this  work,  and  the  Catholic  was  not  allowed  to  answer,  nor 
allowed  the  means  of  refutation.  Thus  a  new  source  of  prejudice  was 
added.  From  the  most  voluminous  histories  to  the  mere  chronological 
tables;  from  the  College  to  the  Nursery,  the  labor  was  to  create  and  to 
perpetuate  prejudice:  and  this  has  continued  during  centuries.  The 
principle  having  been  adopted  soon  after  the  discovery  of  the  art  of 
printing,  those  distortions  of  facts  have  the  appearance  of  being  the 
original  and  authentic  statement  of  what  occurred,  and  the  press  having 
been  in  the  hands  of  only  the  opponents  of  Catholics,  no  counter  state- 
ment could  be  sent  forth. 

Besides  the  distortion  of  history,  the  sciences  have  been  employed 
by  the*  British  nation  against  us.  Her  teachers  of  logic,  in  their  ele- 
mentary treatises,  assume  falsehoods  as  facts,  to  give  as  examples  of 
sophism  what  they  state  to  be  our  mode  of  reasoning,  when  in  truth  we 
do  not  so  mock  reason.  In  their  metaphysics,  every  opportunity  is 
taken  by  many  of  their  writers  to  turn  us  into  ridicule  or  to  exhibit 
us  as  senseless;  they  turn  aside  from  their  astronomical  observations  to 
lecture  upon  the  inquisition,  which  they  will  make  a  constituent  part  of 
our  creed,  against  our  will;  the  chemist  uses  his  laboratory  to  analyze 
our  Sacraments;  the  professor  of  medicine  harangues  upon  our  super- 
stition ;  the  surgeon  dissects  our  saints ;  the  jurist  laments  the  ignorance 
of  our  councils.  I  have  heard  a  man  who  knew  not  the  first  principle  of 
the  civil  code  and  could  not  give  a  rational  definition  of  what  was  the 
nature  of  a  law,  though  he  was  a  professor  of  law !  deliver  flappant  opin- 
ions upon  canons  of  our  Church  which  he  had  never  seen,  and  which, 


two  CALUMNIES   OF  J.   BLANCO   WHITE  219 

had  he  read,  he  could  not  understand,  because  of  his  ignorance  of  his- 
tory, whilst  his  audience  gazed  wisely  upon  each  other  as  they  applauded 
the  only  part  of  the  sentence  which  they  could  repeat,  the  despotism  and 
absurdity  of  Popery.  The  very  principles  of  the  British  law  as  of  force 
in  these  States  when  they  were  colonies,  were  predicated  upon  the 
assumption  that  our  religion  was  an  illegal  superstition  bordering  upon 
treason.  Thus  the  very  study  of  science  in  Britain  and  in  her  colonies 
was  calculated  to  create  prejudice  of  a  very  formidable  nature  against 
us. 

In  belles  lettres,  the  same  consequence  was  insured.  The  mythology 
of  the  heathens  was  explained  by  an  exhibition  of  its  analogy  with  our 
creed ;  we  were  represented  as  the  enemies  of  taste,  the  lovers  of  igno- 
rance, the  destroyers  of  the  fine  arts ;  worse  than  Vandals  and  more 
ferocious  than  Goths.  Geography,  as  with  an  English  tongue  she  de- 
scribed the  nations  of  the  earth,  was  always  sure  to  dwell  upon  the  vices 
and  the  crimes  and  the  follies  of  every  nation  in  which  our  religion  was 
established  or  prevailed,  and  she  became  hyperbolically  eloquent,  as  she 
glowed  in  her  description  of  the  virtues,  the  glories,  the  wisdom  and  the 
superiority  of  the  few  Protestant  states  that  concentered  in  themselves 
every  real  and  imaginary  good  which  the  mind  could  conceive.  Even 
Protestant  England  never  persecuted,  and  Catholic  Italy  blazed  with 
the  fires  of  the  Inquisition. 

I  am  tired  of  the  enumeration.  My  object  was  to  shew  how  it  was 
morally,  I  was  about  to  say  physically  impossible  for  any  American 
Protestant,  however  high  his  rank,  exalted  his  mind,  extensive  his  read- 
ing, or  comprehensive  his  charity,  to  be  free  from  violent  prejudice 
against  Catholics  at  the  period  of  the  revolution,  just  fifty  years  ago. 
My  friends,  if  we  were  placed  in  the  same  situation  as  they  were,  would 
not  our  prejudices  be  what  theirs  were?  I  would  now  bring  your  atten- 
tion to  another  topic.  We  say  they  did  not  know  us:  but  the  present 
generation  ought  to  know  what  we  are.  This,  I  contend,  is  an  error. 
It  is  impossible  that  as  yet  they  should  know  what  we  are,  and  there- 
fore whilst  we  regret  the  prejudice  which  even  as  yet  extensively  exists 
to  our  disadvantage,  we  should  rather  endeavor  by  proper  means  to 
remove  it,  than  blame  those  who  are  its  victims,  because  they  cannot  do 
what  is  impossible.  I  shall  shew  you  briefly  the  obstacles  which  are  as 
yet  in  their  way. 

They  are  still  subject  to  the  operation  to  a  certain  extent,  though 
thank  God,  greatly  diminished,  of  that  prejudice  which  springs  from 
family  affection ;  to  which  is  added  the  prejudice  which  springs  from 
that  pride  of  adherence  to  party,  to  which  we  all  are  subject,  from  which 


220  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


it  is  extremely  difficult  to  become  disengaged.     They  are  yet  liable  to 
nearly  the  same  extent  to  religious  prejudices,  with  the  diminution  that 
is  caused  by  the  greater  caution  of  making  an  attack  where  a  reply  and 
a  retort  may  be  expected,  and  in  some  places,  but  not  very  many,  the 
opportunity  which  is  afforded  for  correcting  mistakes.     They  have  still 
the  same  distorted  histories,  to  correct  whose  statements  so  little  has  been 
done;  and  that  little  so  lately  as  to  have  yet  scarcely  excited  curiosity; 
much  less,  research;  much  less,  change  of  opinion.     Scarcely  a  change 
has  taken  place  in  the  mode  of  abusing  science  or  literature  for  the 
purpose  of  injuring  us.     I  have  once,  not  very  long  since,  felt  a  kind  of 
melancholy  amusement,  in  which  however  my  reveries  were  occasionally 
disturbed  by  a  glow  of  involuntary  indignation,  at  contemplating  one 
of  the  first  graduates  at  the  annual  commencement  of  the  College  of  this 
State,  pouring  out  as  copious  a  collection  of  black  vomit  against  our 
creed  as  if  he  was  upon  the  point  of  expiring  of  a  religious  yellow  fever. 
The  poor  creature  could  not  be  so  much  blamed,  for  he  had  probably 
been  infected  in  the  library,  if  not  tainted  from  his  childhood;  but  I 
can  vouch  that  no  professor  of  that  institution  was  guilty  of  creating 
his  disease,  nor  had  the  simpleton  himself  the  slightest  opportunity  of 
becoming  acquainted  with  several  topics  upon  which  he  raved;  but  the 
books  too  often  contain  what  the  teacher  would  not  have  written.     How 
many  volumes  of  religious  tracts ;  how  many  Gospel  and  Evangelical  and 
Christian  periodical  pviblications,  teem  with  misrepresentation  and  abuse 
of  our  creed?     Nay,  look  at  the  common  newspapers  of  the  day,  whose 
editors  boast  of  their  liberality,  and  confirm  their  claim  to  the  title  by 
most   copious   and   liberal   quotations    from   every   British   hireling   or 
malevolent  infidel ;  in  the  midst  of  all  this,  how  is  it  possible  for  us  to 
expect  that  we  should  be  held  in  just  estimation  by  our  fellow-citizens? 
It  is  then  a  duty  which  we  owe  to  them  and  to  ourselves,  to  attempt  our 
vindication.     As  we  cannot  assemble  as  a  body  to  do  this ;  as  our  Bishops 
do  not  find  it  convenient  or  expedient  to  act  as  the  Irish  Bishops  and 
English  Vicars  have  done  under  similar  circumstances,  an  individual 
has  taken  the  liberty  of  addressing  to  you  his  sentiments  upon  the  sub- 
ject.    I  shall  therefore  examine  the  charges  made  upon  us,  and  give  the 
best  answers  that  I  can,  in  hope  that  some  of  our  Protestant  fellow- 
citizens  may  examine  the  accusation  and  the  defence,  and  that  I  may 
thus  happily,  at  least  lessen  the  amount  of  that  prejudice  which  I  cannot 
hope  to  destroy.     I  shall  begin  by  examining  the  charges  made  by  the 
Rev.  Joseph  Blanco  White;  because  I  observe  that  his  work  is  particu- 
larly lauded  by  the  clergy  of  the  Episcopalian,  Presbyterian,  and  Metho- 
dist churches  of  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  that  strenuous  efforts  are 


two  CALUMNIESOFJ.   BLANCOWHITE  221 

now  making  to  disseminate  the  same,  for  the  purpose  of  adding  to  the 
prejudice  which  unfortunately  exists.  I  know  that  I  undertake  a 
weighty  task,  but  labor  does  not  discourage  me.  These  pieces  shall 
appear  in  the  Miscellany,  addressed  to  you,  and  should  I  find  that  you 
approve  of  them  by  patronizing  the  paper,  and  that  they  are  thought 
by  my  Protestant  fellow-citizens  to  lead  to  a  better  feeling  between  them 
and  us,  and  that  God  should  give  me  health  and  leisure,  when  I  shall 
have  done  with  Mr.  White,  I  have  many  more  to  succeed  in  turn.  I  am 
my  friends, 

Yours,  and  so  forth, 

B.  c. 


LETTER  II. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Sept.  11,  1826. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  friends. — I  stated  that  I  would  commence  my  investigation  by 
examining  the  charges  which  are  made  upon  us  by  the  Rev.  Joseph  Blanco 
White.  You  will  naturally  ask  who  he  is.  I  beg  to  inform  you  that  I 
know  nothing  more  of  him  than  the  account  which  he  gives  of  himself 
in  his  evidence  against  our  religion.  That  evidence,  if  I  must  so  call  it, 
is  contained  in  a  book  which  he  appears  to  have  published  in  London, 
in  April  or  May,  1825 ;  and  which  is  dedicated  to  the  Provost  of  Oriel 
College,  Oxford;  as  also  in  Letters  from  Spain  under  the  signature  of 
Don  Leucadio  Doblado ;  and  which  appeared  in  the  New  Monthly,  (Lon- 
don) Magazine.  In  the  dedication,  Mr.  White  very  plainly  exhibits  his 
object,  in  the  following  passages;  to  understand  which,  it  is  necessary 
to  know  that  the  writer  complains  of  having  been  the  victim  of  Catholic 
persecution  in  Spain.  He  states  that  his  patron  and  he  have  a  "similar- 
ity of  views  as  to  what  is  called  the  Catholic  question.''^  We  are  all  well 
acquainted  with  the  sentiments  generally  entertained  in  England  by  the 
reverend  dignitaries  and  officials  of  the  established  Church,  upon  this 
question :  but  Mr.  White  and  his  patron  appear  to  be  men  of  most  liberal 
and  tolerant  disposition,  if  the  gentleman  himself  is  worthy  of  credit. 
He  writes: 

"From  the  friendly  intercourse  with  which  you  have  honored  me, 
I  know  that  you  hold  it  wrong  to  put  down  religious  error  by  force,  or 
to  propagate  religious  truth  by  degrading  and  branding  those  who  do  not 
think  with  us.  I  have  suffered  too  much  from  religious  despotism,  not 
fully  and  cordially  to  hold  the  same  doctrine.     The  fetters  which,  by 


222  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

God's  mercy,  I  have  been  enabled  to  break,  I  would  rather  die  than  help 
to  rivet  upon  a  fellow-Christian." 

This  would  do  very  well,  had  it  not  the  following  tailpiece : 

"But  the  power  which  made  me  groan  in  protracted  bondage,  is 
striving  to  obtain  a  direct  influence  in  this  Government;  and  I  cannot 
regard  such  efforts  with  apathy.  For  myself,  I  have  nothing  to  fear; 
but  I  deem  it  a  debt  of  gratitude  to  volunteer  my  testimony  in  the  great 
pending  cause,  that  it  may  be  weighed  against  the  studied  and  colored 
evidence  of  such  writers,  as  w^ould  disguise  the  true  character  of  the 
spiritual  tyranny,  whose  fierce  grasp  I  have  eluded.  Indeed  I  would 
never  have  shown  myself  in  the  field  of  controversy,  but  for  the  appear- 
ance of  a  book  evidently  intended  to  divert  the  public  from  the  import- 
ant, and,  to  me,  indubitable  fact,  that  sincere  Roman  Catholics  cannot 
conscientiously  be  tolerant.  How  far,  my  dear  sir,  you  are  convinced  of 
this,  I  cannot  take  upon  myself  to  say :  but  I  am  sure  you  will  allow,  that 
if  such  be  the  real  character  of  Catholicism,  the  only  security  of  Tolera- 
tion must  be  a  certain  degree  of  intolerance,  in  regard  to  its  enemies; 
as  prisons  in  the  freest  governments  are  necessary  for  the  preservation 
of  freedom. ' ' 

In  this  we  observe  that  the  reverend  writer  asserts  it  to  be  an  in- 
dubitable fact  that  sincere  Roman  Catholics  cannot  conscientiously  be 
tolerant ;  that  their  religion  is  spiritual  tyranny ;  that  it  is  trying  to  ob- 
tain a  direct  influence  in  the  British  Government,  that  he  cannot  regard 
its  efi'ort  with  apathy,  that  he  deems  it  necessary  for  him  to  serve  in 
the  great  pending  cause,  viz.  the  discussion  of  the  Catholic's  claims  to 
civil  and  religious  liberty ;  that  he  deems  it  as  necessary  to  have  a  certain 
degree  of  intolerance  against  Catholics  as  to  have  prisons.  Thus  his 
object  evidently,  from  his  own  declarations,  is  to  prevent  Catholic  eman- 
cipation; to  keep  the  British  Catholics  politically  incarcerated;  and  the 
manner  in  which  he  will  contribute  to  this  end  will  be,  by  giving  what 
he  calls  the  real  character  of  Catholicism. 

The  reverend  writer  would  find  some  difficulty  in  reconciling  his 
contradictions,  "that  he  would  rather  die  than  help  rivet  fetters  upon 
a  fellow-Christian,"  "that  he  has  volunteered  his  services  to  help  to  keep 
his  fellow-Christians  in  civil  and  political  incarceration  under  a  free 
and  tolerant  government,  which  has  persecuted  and  still  afflicts  its  sub- 
jects for  adhering  to  the  ancient  religion  of  the  founders  of  that  govern- 
ment itself. ' ' 

But,  my  friends,  were  I  to  dwell  upon  every  contradiction  of  this 
liberal  persecutor,  I  should  indeed  have  a  long  series  of  letters  to  write. 
One  specimen  more,  and  I  shall  be  done  with  this  dedication.     After 


two  CALUMNIES   OF  J.   BLANCO   WHITE  223 


candidly  stating  in  all  appearance  the  truth,  in  the  outset,  viz.  that  his 
principal  motive  was  what  he  calls  a  generous  impulse  of  gratitude  to 
save  a  generous  country,  he  next  tells  us  that  such  was  not  the  motive ; 
for  in  truth  his  work  is  only  indirectly  connected  therewith;  and  al- 
though his  object  was  that  "his  tesimony  in  the  great  pending  cause, 
should  be  weighed  against  the  studied  and  colored  evidence ' '  of  the  advo- 
cates of  Catholics,  yet  "the  parliamentary  question  about  the  claims  of 
the  Roman  Catholics  is  by  no  means  the  object  he  had  in  view  whilst 
writing. ' ' 

"I  have  thus  far  thought  it  necessary  to  touch  upon  the  political 
question  with  which  my  work  is  indirectly  connected.  I  say  indirectly, 
because  the  parliamentary  question  about  the  claims  of  the  Roman 
Catholics  is  by  no  means  the  object  which  I  have  had  in  view  while  writ- 
ing. I  will  not  deny  that  I  should  be  glad  if  my  humble  performance 
could  throw  any  light  on  a  question  in  which  the  welfare  of  this  coun- 
try is  so  deeply  concerned ;  but  it  is  probable  that  it  will  not  appear  till 
after  the  decision  of  the  Parliament.  Let  this,  however,  be  as  it  may, 
still  I  humbly  hope,  that,  whether  the  Roman  Catholics  are  admitted 
into  Parliament,  or  allowed  to  continue  under  the  disabilities  which  their 
honest  opponents  lament,  my  labor  will  not  have  been  thrown  away. 
For  as  the  danger  which  may  threaten  this  country  in  the  admission  of 
Roman  Catholic  legislators,  depends  entirely  upon  their  religious  sin- 
cerity ;  I  shall  not  have  troubled  the  public  in  vain,  if  either  I  can  con- 
vince the  conscientious  of  the  papal  communion,  that  a  Roman  Catholic 
cannot  honestly  do  his  duty  as  a  member  of  the  British  Parliament  with- 
out moral  guilt;  or,  what  I  ardently  wish,  my  arguments  should  open 
their  eyes  to  the  errors  of  their  Church. ' ' 

I  believe  we  may  fairly  conclude  that  the  writer  was  sincere  in 
his  declarations,  that  his  object  in  writing  was  not  the  question  of 
the  claims  of  the  Catholics,  but  of  his  own  recompense;  that  his  book 
is  one  of  those  compilations  which  has  been  got  up  just  in  time  to  be  put 
into  the  hands  of  members  of  Parliament,  so  as  to  influence  votes,  but 
not  in  time  to  admit  of  any  refutation  before  that  vote  is  given :  for  it 
was  avowedly  written  in  reference  to  the  great  pending  question,  at  a 
time  when  it  was  certain  of  being  carried  in  the  House  of  Commons, 
and  by  no  means  certain  that  a  majority  could  be  got  up  in  the  House 
of  Lords  to  reject  it ;  and  Mr.  White  and  his  patron,  though  very  liberal 
men,  had  determined  to  do  their  utmost  to  keep  the  Catholics  in  their 
state  of  degradation.  I  give  them  very  little  credit,  however,  for  their 
bungling  mode  of  keeping  their  own  secret. 

Mr.  White's  object,  then,  very  clearly  was,  to  write  as  forcibly  as 


224  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

he  conld,  to  prove  that  Roman  Catholics  ought  not  to  be  admitted  to  an 
equality  of  civil  and  political  rights  with  their  Protestant  fellow-subjects. 
Can  this  be  the  object  of  Bishop  Kemp  of  Baltimore,  and  the  twenty 
pastors  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal,  Presbyterian,  and  Methodist 
Churches  of  the  District  of  Columbia  and  its  vicinity,  in  procuring  a 
re-print  of  this  book  in  Amerca  ?  They  deserve  the  approbation  of  their 
fellow-citizens  for  their  zeal  in  promoting  Christian  charity.  They  de- 
serve the  lasting  gratitude  of  their  Roman  Cathiloc  neighbors  for  their 
exertions  on  their  behalf. 

I  have  now  to  take  Mr.  White's  account  of  himself.  He  is  a  Priest 
in  the  English  Protestant  Church,  who  was  formerly  of  the  Roman 
Catholic,  and  who  received  his  orders  in  that  Church,  in  Spain,  of  whicli 
he  is  a  native.  He  is  now,  I  understand,  a  minister  in  some  Church,  in 
or  near  London;  he  was  a  graduate  of  Seville,  and  took  out  his  theo- 
logical certificate  of  qualification  at  Osuna.  He  held  a  prebend's  stall 
in  the  Royal  Chapel  at  Seville,  and  was  a  member  of  the  collegiate 
Churches  of  that  city,  a  synodal  examiner  in  the  diocess  of  Cadiz,  and  a 
member  of  some  literary  society :  the  whole  of  which  is  appended  to  his 
name  in  the  title  page  of  his  book,  together  with  a  statement  that  he 
is  the  author  of  Dohlado's  Letters  from  Spain.  Of  course  the  object  is 
to  shew  how  great  a  man  and  therefore  how  good  a  witness  is  Mr.  White. 
Upon  all  this,  I  shall  merely  remark,  that  it  is  with  titles  sometimes  as 
with  coat  of  arms  in  heraldry,  the  plain  field  which  is  without  any  em- 
blazonment is  evidence  of  the  most  remote  and  illustrious  antiquity,  antl 
a  single  emblem  of  that  which  is  next  in  dignity.  The  undecorated 
name  of  the  individual,  when  good,  is  the  best  recommendation:  hence 
George  Washington  sounds  better  than  if  six  kings  at  arms  lost  their 
breath  in  the  sucessive  enumeration  of  orders  and  decorations:  and  the 
plain  title  of  "virtuous  man"  or  "good  priest"  would  have  raised  Mr. 
White  more  in  our  estimation,  than  if  the  whole  title  page  were  filled 
with  the  offices  which  he  had  held,  and  the  stations  which  he  had  de- 
serted. To  us,  the  enumeration  of  those  places  conveys  no  idea  of  any 
superior  acquirements  in  the  individual,  for  with  the  exception  of  one, 
they  are  all  within  the  reach  of  any  young  man  of  very  moderate  capaci- 
ty, much  less  than  I  believe  Mr.  AVhite  to  possess,  though  I  rate  his  low 
enough.  The  first  two  titles  merely  shew  that  he  went  through  his  usual 
collegiate  examinations,  the  third  shews  that  he  had  license  to  preach  and 
had  an  appointment ;  if  the  College  of  St.  Mary  a  Jesu  in  Seville  is,  as 
many  such  are,  a  mere  sinecure  benefice,  or  as  several  others  in  Spain 
are,  one  next  to  a  sinecure,  the  qualifications  for  its  rectorship  are  merely 
nominal ;  the  place  of  a  synodal  examiner  in  the  Diocess  of  Cadiz  would 


two  CALUMNIES   OF   J.   BLANCO  WHITE  225 

indeed  be  some  evidence  of  his  good  standing  in  the  Church,  if  he  lived 
in  that  Diocess  and  discharged  its  duties ;  but  with  him,  living  in  Seville, 
it  was  a  mere  honorary  appointment,  and  no  evidence  whatever  of  theo- 
logical standing. 

Indeed,  the  gentleman  gives  us,  himself,  very  clearly  the  value  of 
his  titles,  when  he  informs  us,  page  17,  of  the  manner  in  which  he  ob- 
tained his  degree  in  Osuna.  "He  was  not  of  sufficient  standing"  to 
obtain  it  at  Seville,  it  was  necessary  to  have  a  diploma  to  take  the  place 
in  the  College  of  St.  Mary,  at  Seville,  he  therefore  took  it  at  Osuna  which 
was  not  strict.  The  value  of  a  degree  at  Osuna  is  known  in  Spain,  but  it 
sounds  very  well  in  England  and  America.  In  page  18,  Mr.  W.  writes : 
"I  owed  my  preferment  to  a  public  display  of  theological  knowledge." 
To  understand  this,  it  is  necessary  to  know  what  is  required  by  the  canons 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  on  such  occasions.  When  a  benefice 
is  vacant,  public  notice  is  given,  the  candidates  for  the  place  are  to  pro- 
duce their  documents  of  qualification  to  discharge  its  duties,  and  they 
who  are  admitted  to  be  sufficiently  qualified  enter  into  contest  before  a 
board  of  sworn  examiners,  who  are  generally  appointed,  by  alternative 
nomination,  by  the  Bishop  and  by  the  Chapter :  the  clergymen  who  form 
this  board  of  examiners  make  a  written  return  of  the  names  of  the  can- 
didates, arranged  according  to  their  respective  merits.  If  the  benefice 
is  in  the  gift  of  a  patron  or  of  electors,  the  selection  is  then  made  from 
the  three  highest  names  upon  the  list ;  the  patron  has  the  right  of  pre- 
senting the  selected  individual  to  the  Bishop,  who  if  he  approves  of  him 
inducts  him,  or  if  he  disapproves  of  the  person  presented  requires  another 
name,  which  must  be  furnished  within  a  given  time,  or  the  patron  loses 
his  right  for  that  time,  and  the  Bishop  fills  the  vacancy.  This  examina- 
tion takes  place  in  public.  The  principle  was  wisely  laid  down  by  the 
Church,  for  those  places  in  which  there  exists  a  right  of  patronage,  to 
prevent  the  introduction  of  improper  persons;  but  frequently  the  prac- 
tice, is  very  difi:'erent  from  what  was  contemplated  by  the  theory. 
By  the  contrivance  of  the  patrons,  it  frequently  has  happened  that  a 
person  who  would  be  a  candidate  was  taught  that  contention  would  be 
madness,  because  that  the  patron  had  already  fixed  upon  the  person  who 
was  to  fill  the  place,  and  that  any  other  even  successful  opponent  would 
not  be  presented;  but  would  earn  the  patron's  ill-will,  and  that  of  the 
friends  of  the  designated  candidate.  Thus  frequently  the  examination 
was  but  a  form.  Again,  in  all  the  contests  between  young  men  for 
lesser  offices,  such  as  Mr.  White's,  the  examination  was  far  from  severe, 
and  contest  was  not  difficult.  From  the  gentleman's  own  shewing  in 
page  17,  "the  high  rank  which  the  author  sustained  as  a  minister  of  the 


226 


CONTROVERSY 


Vol. 


Roman  Catholic  Cluireh,"  is  not  in  point  of  fact  equal  to  the  rank  of 
any  pastor  of  that  Church  in  the  city  of  Baltimore ;  yet  the  Right  Rev- 
erend Dr.  Kemp  and  his  clergy  put  it  forward  as  a  very  strong  feature 
to  recommend  the  word. 

^'Becommendation. — The  Letters  of  the  Reverend  Blanco  White 
contain  a  temperate  and  able  exposition  of  the  errors  of  Popery.  The 
high  rank  which  the  author  sustained  as  a  minister  of  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic Church,  eminently  qualified  him  for  the  task  which  he  had  under- 
taken and  so  well  fulfilled;  and  his  familiar  acquaintance  with  all  the 
secret  springs  and  movements  of  that  wonderful  system,  has  enabled 
him  to  diversify  his  discussion  with  many  highly  interesting  and  im- 
portant incidents.  We  therefore  cheerfully  recommend  the  work  as 
highly  deserving  of  public  attention. 


Rev.  J.  P.  K.  Henshaw, 
J.  R.  Keech, 
C.  B.  Tippet, 
H.  N.  Gray, 
J.  N.  Campbell, 
C.  Harrison, 
J.  Guest, 


Rev.  S.  B.  Balch,  D.D. 
R.  Post, 
W.  Nevins, 
A.    Helfenstein, 
T.  E.  Bond,  M.D. 
S.     K.     Jennings, 
M.D. 


Rt.    Rev.    Jas.    Kemp, 

D.D. 
Rev.    W.    H.    Wilmer, 
D.D. 

Basil  Keith, 

S.  H.  Tyng, 

W.   Hawley, 

E.  Allen, 

As  a  theologian  we  may  find  his  qualifications,  by  his  own  account 
of  the  manner  in  which  he  attended  to  his  studies.  The  following  ex- 
tracts are  from  Letter  V.  Volume  2,  for  1821,  from  July  to  December, 
printed  by  Littel  of  Philadelphia,  and  Henry  of  New  York,  to  the  pages 
of  which  edition  I  shall  always  refer,  page  290: 

"An  imperfect  knowledge  of  the  Logic  and  Natural  Philosophy  was 
all  I  acquired  at  the  University  before  I  began  the  study  of  divinity." 

Page  292.  "French  philosophy  had  not  found  its  way  to  the  Uni- 
versity of  Seville  at  the  time  when  I  was  studying  divinity." 

Page  293.  "The  greatest  part  of  my  time,  wdth  the  exception  of 
that  required  for  my  daily  attendance  at  the  dull  lectures  of  divinity 
professors,  was  devoted  to  the  French  critics,  Andre  Le  Bossu,  Batteux, 
Rollin,  La  Harpe,  and  many  others  of  less  note.  The  habit  of  analyzing 
language  and  ideas,  which  I  acquired  in  the  perusal  of  such  works,  soon 
led  me  to  the  French  metaphysicians,  especially  Condillac." 

The  young  gentleman  is  very  angry  with  the  ignorant  theologians 
who  would  decry  the  metaphysics  of  materialism,  or  attempt  to  insinuate 
that  man  is  a  being  composed  of  a  spiritual  soul  and  material  body. 

Page  289.  "To  acknowledge,  on  the  authority  of  revelation,  that 
mankind  will  rise  from  their  graves,  is  not  sufficient  to  protect  the  un- 


two  CALUMNIES   OF  J.   BLANCO  WHITE  227 

fortunate  metaphysician  who  should  deny  that  man  is  a  compound  of 
two  substances,  one  of  which  is  naturally  immortal. ' ' 

That  Bishop  Kemp  and  his  venerable  associates  may  know  the  full 
extent  of  this  gentleman 's  high  rank  as  a  divine,  I  shall  exhibit  the  com- 
pletion of  his  theological  studies  in  his  own  words,  in  the  Letters  of 
Dohlado. 

Pages  298  and  299.  "The  first  taste  of  mental  liberty  was  more 
delicious  than  any  feeling  I  ever  experienced;  but  was  suceeded  by  a 
burning  thirst  for  every  thing,  that  by  destroying  my  old  mental  habits 
could  strengthen  it  and  confirm  my  unbelief.  I  gave  an  exhorbitant  price 
for  any  French  irreligious  books,  which  the  love  of  gain  induced  some 
Spanish  book-sellers  to  import  at  their  peril.  The  intuitive  knowledge 
of  one  another,  which  persecuted  principles  impart  to  such  as  cherish 
them  in  common,  made  me  soon  acquainted  with  several  members  of  my 
own  profession,  deeply  versed  in  the  Philosophical  school  of  France. 
They  possessed  and  made  no  difficulty  to  lend  me  all  the  anti- Christian 
works  of  the  French  press. ' ' 

"Pretending  studious  retirement,  I  have  fitted  up  a  small  room,  to 
which  none  but  my  confidential  friends  find  admittance.  Here  lie  my 
prohibited  books,  in  perfect  concealment,  in  a  well  contrived  nook  under 
a  stair  case.  The  Breviary  alone,  in  its  black  binding,  clasps,  and  gilt 
leaves,  is  kept  upon  the  table,  to  check  the  doubts  of  any  chance  in- 
truder. ' ' 

I  could  give  other  extracts,  but  these  will  suffice  to  shew  what  learn- 
ing and  especially  what  extensive  theological  knowledge  the  writer  pos- 
sessed. How  then,  it  will  be  asked,  did  he  rise  to  such  an  eminent  place  ? 
My  answer  is,  the  place  was  not  eminent :  and  that  he  got  it  in  the  manner 
which  I  have  suggested  he  gives  good  reason  to  believe,  for,  in  page  287 
of  his  Spanish  Letters,  he  states  that  those  fellowships  as  he  called  them 
were  obtained  by  partiality,  and  in  page  288  he  shews  how  they  who  had 
not  interest  to  secure  a  strong  party  amongst  the  electors,  could  not 
offer  themselves  "as  champions  at  those  literary  jousts." 

The  standing  of  the  author  as  to  grade,  in  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  was  therefore  far  from  high.  But  of  that  I  shall  make  no  point ; 
I  shall  treat  him  as  if  he  was  the  most  learned  Pope  that  ever  existed. 
There  is  another  criterion  besides  knowledge  and  talent  required  in  a 
witness :  this  writer  coming  forward  to  testify,  must  submit  to  the  ordeal 
of  examination  upon  the  score  of  character.  I  know  nothing  more  of 
him  than  is  furnished  by  his  own  book ;  and  upon  his  own  statements  I 
shall  form  my  judgment. 

He  is  the  grandson  of  an  Irish  emigrant  who  was  obliged  to  leave 


228  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


Ireland  and  to  take  refuge  in  Spain,  because  of  that  code,  whose  prin- 
ciples the  grandson  of  this  refugee  has  returned  from  Spain  to  advocate, 
(p.  15).  The  author's  father  was  sent  to  Ireland  in  his  childhood  for  a 
time,  that  he  might  not  lose  the  attachment  to  the  land  of  his  progenitors ; 
and  the  son  of  that  father  returns  to  England  to  exhort  the  oppressors 
of  his  father's  land  to  continue  their  oppression:  to  call  upon  the  British 
Parliament  in  the  name  of  the  God  of  charity  and  justice  to  continue  the 
fetters  of  political  and  civil  persecution  on  the  score  of  religion,  upon 
the  children  of  calumniated  martyrs !  !  !  His  mother  was  a  Spanish  lady, 
whom  he  describes  as  decorated  with  every  true  virtue;  of  his  parent 
he  says,  "  It  is  enough  to  say  that  such  were  the  purity,  the  benevolence, 
and  the  angelic  piety  of  my  father's  life,  that  at  his  death,  multitudes 
of  people  thronged  the  house  to  indulge  a  last  view  of  the  dead  body. 
Nor  was  the  wife  of  his  bosom  at  all  behind  him  either  in  fulness  of  faith 
or  sanctity  of  manners."  Yet  they  were  rigid  Roman  Catholics!  He 
informs  us  that  his  education  was  well  attended  to. 

"At  the  age  of  fourteen,  all  the  seeds  of  devotion  which  had  been 
sown  in  my  heart  sprung  up  spontaneously.  The  pious  practices  which 
had  been  hitherto  a  task,  were  now  the  effort  of  my  own  choice.  I  be- 
came a  constant  attendant  at  the  congregation  of  the  Oratory,  where 
pious  young  men,  intended  for  the  Church,  generally  had  their  spiritual 
directors.  Dividing  my  time  between  study  and  devotion,  I  went 
through  a  course  of  philosophy  and  divinity  at  the  University  of  Seville : 
at  the  end  of  which  I  received  the  Roman  Catholic  order  of  subdeacon." 

From  the  above  extract,  page  16,  one  would  imagine  that  a  more  im- 
maculate and  holy  young  gentleman  had  never  taken  orders.  If  his  testi- 
mony be  worth  any  thing,  it  will  prove,  that  the  education  of  a  child  of 
virtuous  parents  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  has  not  any  taint  by 
which  virtue  is  contaminated  by  bad  doctrine;  it  will  prove  that  the 
education  of  candidates  for  holy  orders  in  the  Catholic  Church  is  one 
which  cultivates  and  develops  the  germs  which  the  seeds  of  virtue  shoots 
forth ;  our  witness  in  his  last  letters  has  not  made  any  charge  of  neglect 
of  cultivating  learning  or  Christian  virtue  upon  the  Roman  Catholics, 
who  have  charge  of  educating  youth.  He  gives  a  farther  testimony  on 
this  subject  in  page  140,  [where]  he  writes — 

"A  more  blameless,  ingenuous,  religious  set  of  youths  than  that  in 
the  enjoyment  of  whose  friendship  I  passed  the  best  years  of  my  life, 
the  world  cannot  boast  of.  Eight  of  us,  all  nearly  the  same  age,  lived 
in  the  closest  bond  of  affection,  from  sixteen  till  one  and  twenty;  and 
four  at  least,  continued  in  the  same  intimacy  till  that  of  thirty-five.  Of 
this  knot  of  friends  not  one  was  tainted  by  the  breath  of  gross  vice,  till 


two  CALUMNIES   OF  J.   BLANCO   WHITE  229 


the  Church  had  doomed  them  to  a  life  of  celibacy,  and  turned  the  best 
affections  of  their  hearts  into  crime. ' ' 

Upon  this,  all  I  shall  remark  is,  that  it  supports  the  testimony  before 
given  that  in  the  education,  in  the  religious  instruction,  there  was  nothing 
but  the  highest  purity  and  most  perfect  virtue ;  whether  his  crimes  and 
those  of  his  companions  were  caused  by  the  obligation  of  celibacy  is  a 
different  question.     In  page  143  he  writes — 

' '  I  have  seen  the  most  promising  men  of  my  University  obtain  coun- 
try vicarages,  with  characters  unimpeached,  and  hearts  overflowing  with 
hopes  of  usefulness." 

We  have  now  from  the  reverend  gentleman  full  testimony  that  the 
education  was  excellent  and  the  demeanor  virtuous  and  the  disposition 
good,  at  the  time  of  ordination.  We  have  also  his  statement  regarding 
himself,  that  from  fourteen  to  twenty-five  he  was  most  virtuous.  Page 
18,  he  says  his  religious  doubts  began,  but  still  he  was  pious,  and  prayed, 
and  was  devout,  and  they  were  dispelled.  But  to  prove  that  unbelief 
does  not  always  arise  from  immorality  and  levity,  he  assures  us  that  his 
conscience  did  not  then  reproach  him  with  any  open  breach  of  duty  but 
those  committed  several  years  before.  He  does  not  vouchsafe  to  say 
how  many  years,  but  the  gentleman  was  now  in  his  twenty-sixth  year, 
and  he  has  informed  us  that  in  his  childhood  ''no  waywardness  of  dis- 
position appeared  in  him  to  defeat  or  obstruct  the  labors  of  his  parents 
to  educate  him  in  virtue,"  and  that  afterwards,  to  wit,  from  fourteen 
to  this  period,  he  and  his  companions  were  the  most  blameless  and  relig- 
ious youths  in  the  world.  Still  he  had  committed  open  hreaches  of  duty 
several  years  before.  Whichever  side  of  this  contradiction  is  true,  mat- 
ters very  little ;  the  conclusion  is  inevitable ;  the  truth  of  both  sides  being 
irreconcileable,  one  of  them  must  be  false;  and  our  witness  has  conse- 
quently under  his  ovm  hand  stated  that  which  he  must  have  known  to 
be  untrue.  I  shall  not  dwell  longer  on  exhibiting  the  witness's  self- 
contradiction,  for  of  that  abundance  shall  be  furnished.  I  am  now  only 
examining  his  credibility  as  a  moral  man,  and  from  his  own  disclosures. 
He  exhibits  himself  as  an  imposter  who  would  persuade  the  public  that 
up  to  his  twenty-fifth  year  he  was  blameless,  religious,  and  virtuous, 
though  he  knew  that  several  years  before  he  had  committed  open  breaches 
of  duty. 

We  shall  however  now  give  the  same  Mr.  White's  testimony,  upon 
the  same  subject,  from  another  of  his  works.  Speaking  of  his  childhood, 
he  writes  in  his  Letters  from  Spain,  in  the  Magazine  volume  2 : 

Page  31.  "The  Church  cannot  be  wrong,  we  know,  but  to  say  the 
honest  truth,  all  her  pious  contrivances,  have,  by  a  sad  fatality,  pro- 


230  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

duced  in  me  just  the  reverse  of  what  they  aimed  at.  Though  the  clergy- 
man who  was  to  shrive  this  young  sinner  (himself  at  between  seven  and 
eight  years  of  age)  had  mild,  gentle  and  affectionate  manners,  there  is 
something  in  auricular  confession  which  has  revolted  my  feelings  from 
the  first  day  I  knelt  before  a  priest,  in  childish  simplicity,  to  the  last 
time  I  have  been  forced  to  repeat  that  ceremony  as  a  protection  to  my 
life  and  liberty,  with  scorn  and  contempt  in  my  heart." 

In  page  32,  he  informs  us,  that  at  making  his  first  communion,  he 
was  guilty  of  making  it  with  the  imaginary  guilt  of  sacrilege  for  having 
made  a  bad  confession ;  at  fourteen,  he  made  a  good  confession.  He  was 
intended  for  the  counting-house,  to  which  he  took  a  disgust  at  the  age  of 
ten,  and  desiring  to  be  a  learned  man,  resolved  to  become  a  clergyman. 
His  mother  was  pleased  at  this,  because  amongst  other  reasons,  he  would 
have  no  wife  who  would  steal  his  affections  from  his  parent.  He  does  not 
say  that  his  mother  used  the  expression ;  but  he  thinks  she  must  have  had 
this  motive.  In  page  161,  he  tells  us  that  at  the  age  of  sixteen,  father 
Vega,  the  superior  of  the  Priests  of  the  Oratory  at  Seville,  discovered 
that  one  of  the  associates  of  Mr.  White  had  prohibited  books,  and 
White  being  admonished  to  denounce  this  student  of  divinity ;  either  his 
head  or  his  heart,  he  knows  not  which,  in  spite  of  a  frighted  fancy,  en- 
dued him  with  resolution  to  "bafiSe  the  blind  zeal  of  his  confessor." 
''The  development  of  his  reason  saved  him  from  sinking  into  the  dregs 
of  Aristoletic  Philosophy."  "The  categories  of  St.  Thomas  were  un- 
savory food  for  his  mind,  and  he  never  opened  the  dismal  book."  In 
page  164,  he  finds  in  the  second  volume  of  Aristotelic  Natural  Philosophy 
of  the  Dominicans  that  the  reason  why  water  rises  in  a  pump  is  the 
horror  which  nature  has  at  being  wounded  and  torn.  (This  is  a  dis- 
covery which  no  other  person  has  had  the  happiness  of  being  able  to  make 
during  the  last  three  hundred  years.)  He  quarrels  with  his  professor, 
leaves  the  college  and  goes  to  the  university.  In  the  former  part  of  his 
letter  I  have  shewn  his  account  of  his  mode  of  studying  theology.  He 
had  been  the  associate  of  a  number  of  concealed  infidels,  and  had  totally 
neglected  his  studies,  and  baffled  the  blind  zeal  of  his  religious  directors ; 
left  the  old  father  Vega,  and  picked  up  a  confessor  more  to  his  taste, 
who  was  his  literary  and  spiritual  director.  He  now  gives  us  an  ac- 
count in  his  Spanish  letters  of  his  disposition  for  subdeaconship. 

Page  293.  "I  will  not  describe  the  misery  that  embittered  my  youth 
and  destroyed  the  peace  of  my  maturer  years,  the  struggles,  perhaps 
the  crimes,  certainly  remorse,  that  were  the  consequence  of  the  bar- 
barous laws  of  my  country." 

All  this  arose  from  Catholicism  he  assures  us,  because  she  did  not 


two  CALUMNIES   OF  J.   BLANCO  WHITE  231 

bring  love  to  her  side,  but  forced  him  into  an  inseparable  league  with 
immorality.  We  shall  see  the  force.  No  one  could  compel  him  to  enter 
upon  a  clerical  state ;  and  certainly  neither  his  country  nor  the  Church 
compelled  him.  He  has  already  been  a  criminal,  why  should  he  now 
enter  upon  a  state  for  which  he  knew  himself  to  be  unfit?  Read  what 
he  says — 

"Often  did  I  recoil  at  the  approach  of  the  moment  when  I  was  to 
bind  myself  forever  to  the  clerical  profession,  and  as  often  my  heart 
failed  me  at  the  sight  of  a  mother  in  tears.  It  was  not  worldly  interests 
— it  was  the  eternal  welfare  of  my  soul  which  she  believed  to  depend  upon 
my  following  the  call  of  heaven,  that  made  the  best  of  mothers  a  snare 
to  her  dearest  child. ' ' 

To  this  he  adds  the  persuasions  of  the  bad  man  whom  he  had  chosen 
as  a  guide :  and  therefore,  the  law  is  bad,  because  a  man  who  knows  he 
ought  not  to  enter  upon  the  state,  takes  the  advice  of  a  man  M'ho  he  knew 
was  misleading  him,  and  acted  against  his  conscience  after  other  crimes, 
because  his  mother  cried. 

My  friends ;  you  will  observe  the  innocent  and  studious  young  man 
going  with  fine  dispositions  to  ordination :  and  the  idle  student  who  in- 
sults his  teacher,  neglects  his  regular  studies,  associates  with  infidels,  is 
criminal  in  his  conduct,  insincere  in  his  confession,  selects  the  worst 
clergymen  for  his  guides  and  binds  himself  to  a  state  for  which  he  has 
made  himself  unfit. 

Mr.  Blanco  White  has  given  you  the  two  pictures  of  himself,  it  is 
for  you  to  choose.  I  have  only  sketched  the  outline :  when  I  shall  have 
laid  on  all  my  colors,  I  shall  be  happy  to  receive  Bishop  Kemp 's  remarks. 

Yours  for  the  present, 

B.  c. 

LETTER  III. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Sept.  18,  1826. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends — I  shall  continue  my  examination  of  Mr.  White 's  char- 
acter, at  some  length;  and  that  my  object  in  so  doing  may  be  manifest, 
I  shall  inform  you  what  it  is ;  you  will  first  bear  with  my  stating  to  you 
what  that  object  is  not.  I  do  not  examine  his  character  to  vilify  him, 
in  exposing  his  faults,  of  which  the  best  of  us  has  enough,  by  way  of  re- 
taliation for  his  deserting  our  Church,  or  for  his  having  written  a  gross 
attack  upon  our  tenets.  I  should  despise  myself  were  I  capable  of  such 
misconduct:  however  deficient  this  priest  might  have  been  in  ecclesias- 


232  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

tical  knowledge,  his  ignorance  could  not  make  good  any  practice  of  our 
Church,  which  in  its  own  nature  would  be  bad ;  however  bereft  of  faith 
he  might  be,  his  infidelity  could  not  make  a  foolish  or  vicious  human  in- 
vention become  a  part  of  the  revelation,  or  institution  of  God,  and  how 
ever  corupt  or  profligate  his  own  conduct  might  have  been,  its  criminal- 
ity could  not  make  the  crimes  of  other  profligates  become  virtues,  nor 
could  they  be  excused  because  of  his  wickedness.  My  object  then,  is 
not,  by  exhibiting  the  true  character  of  Mr.  White,  to  justify  in  our 
Church,  practices  which  deserve  condemnation ;  nor  to  excuse  criminals 
of  our  communion,  because  he  who  denounces  them  has  deserted  our 
Church,  and  was  himself  a  criminal ;  no,  my  object  is  to  shew  that  the 
bare  assertion  of  Mr.  White  is  no  evidence ;  and  I  believe  that  I  shall  ef- 
fect this  by  proving  that  from  his  character  as  given  by  himself,  he  is  to- 
tally unworthy  of  credit.  This  is  my  object  in  the  very  painful  task  which 
I  am  performing.  I  consider  this  to  be  very  necessary,  because  the  chief 
value  attached  to  his  publication  arises  from  his  being  a  credible  witness 
of  facts  which  he  alleges  to  have  been  under  his  own  observation. 

I  believe  that  I  have  fully  shewn  that  neither  from  his  rank,  nor  from 
his  ecclesiastical  information,  does  this  priest  deserve  any  of  that  extra- 
ordinary attention  which  Bishop  Kemp  and  his  Episcopalian,  Presby- 
terian and  Methodist  associates  so  emphatically  claim  on  his  behalf. 
Mr.  White's  rank  w-as  that  of  a  mere  possessor  of  a  benefice  without  the 
care  of  souls,  having  indeed  a  rank  w^hich  pre-supposed  some  attainment 
of  knowledge,  a  certificate  of  which  attainment  he  could  not  obtain  in 
the  university  where  he  w^as  educated;  but  to  effect  his  purpose  he  at- 
tained it  at  one  of  those  places  which  by  virtue  of  an  old  charter  can 
grant  to  any  one,  and  does  grant  to  the  unworthy  what  was  intended  to 
be  given  only  to  the  learned.  We  see  that  he  scarcely  studied  his  treat- 
ises whilst  he  was  attending  the  dull  lectures  on  divinity ;  but  that  he  read 
light  works  of  taste,  and  subsequently  devoured  the  anti-christian  pro- 
ductions of  the  French  school  of  infidelity.  He  in  one  book  tells  us  of 
his  innocence  and  his  religion,  whilst  in  another  he  avows  his  criminality ; 
and  even  in  this  testimony  of  his  innocence,  the  recollection  of  his  mis- 
deeds involuntarily  escapes  from  him.  He  in  one  place  appears  to  be 
filled  with  the  spirit  of  virtue  at  the  time  of  his  ordination ;  and  yet  he 
testifies  that  it  was  against  his  will,  and  because  his  mother  was  bathed 
in  tears,  [that]  he  became  an  ecclesiastic.  He  bound  himself  to  celibacy, 
because  his  mother  cried;  when  he  hated  to  bind  himself,  because  if  he 
did  so  he  could  not  lawfully  cherish  love.  Do  not,  my  friends,  do  not 
turn  away  in  disgust.  It  is  unpleasant ;  but  you  must  bear  more  if  you 
will  have  correct  information.    I  have  as  yet  made  no  incision ;  I  am  only 


two  CALUMNIES   OF   J.   BLANCO   WHITE  233 


marking  the  surface.  It  is  necessary  for  you  to  view  the  subject,  and  to 
observe  the  dissection. 

Mr.  White  having  been  ordained  subdeacon,  informs  us,  in  his  evi- 
dence against  Catholicism,  page  17,  that  upon  his  receiving  his  benefice 
about  a  year  after  his  ordination  to  the  priesthood,  he  felt  it  to  be  his 
duty  "to  devote  his  whole  leisure  to  the  study  of  religion."  He  adds, 
page  18,  "I  need  not  say  that  I  was  fully  conversant  with  the  system 
of  Catholic  divinity;  for  I  owed  my  preferment  to  a  public  display  of 
theological  knowledge ;  yet  I  wished  to  become  acquainted  with  all  kinds 
of  works  which  might  increase  and  perfect  that  knowledge. ' ' 

I  have  shown  you  what  his  studies  were.  Now  allow  me  to  say  that 
the  writer  of  these  letters  has  made  theology  his  principal  study  during 
twenty  years ;  that  he  has  had  patience  to  study  for,  and  to  attend  to  the 
dull  lectures  of  divinity  professors ;  that  his  love  for  that  study  so  far 
from  being  diminished,  grows  stronger  every  day,  and  that  he  still  feels 
his  deficiency  to  be  so  great,  that  although  he  knows  much ;  he  could  not 
presume  to  say  that  now  he  is  fully  conversant  with  the  system  of  Cath- 
olic divinity.  It  may  be  weakness  on  his  part ;  but  he  never  can  hear  any 
young  man,  let  his  attention  to  study  have  been  ever  so  great,  make  srfch 
an  assertion  as  Mr.  White  has  here  made,  without  at  once  looking  upon 
him  to  be  very  superficially  instructed,  and  impertinently  vain:  but  in 
this  man's  case,  how  could  he  have  been  fully  conversant  with  a  system 
which  he  never  studied?  which  he  despised?  Let  us  now  from  his  other 
letters  (Doblado's)  take  his  own  account  of  the  interval  between  his  re- 
ceiving subdeaconship  and  his  being  ordained  priest. 

In  my  last  letter  I  stated  from  his  own  words  the  very  improper 
dispositions  with  which  he  approached  to  subdeaconship :  allow  me  to 
exhibit  to  you  his  mode  of  preparing  for  priesthood. 

Pages  293  and  294— 

"Often  did  I  recoil  at  the  approach  of  the  moment  when  I  was  to 
bind  myself  for  ever  to  the  clerical  profession,  and  as  often  my  heart 
failed  me  at  the  sight  of  a  mother  in  tears.  It  was  not  worldly  interests — 
it  was  the  eternal  welfare  of  my  soul  which  she  believed  to  depend  upon 
my  following  the  call  of  heaven  that  made  the  best  of  mothers  a  snare  to 
her  dearest  child.  The  persuasions  of  my  confessor,  and  above  all,  the 
happiness  which  I  experienced  in  restoring  cheerfulness  to  my  family 
deluded  me  into  the  hope  of  preserving  the  same  feeling  through  life.  A 
very  short  time,  however,  was  sufficient  to  open  my  eyes.  The  inexorable 
law  that  bound  me  was  the  bitterest  foe  to  my  virtue.  Yet  devotion  had 
not  lost  her  power  over  my  fancy,  and  I  broke  loose  more  than  once  from 


234  •  CONTROVERSY  '  Vol. 

her  thraldom,  and  was  as  often  reclaimed,  before  the  awful  period  which 
was  to  raise  me  to  the  priesthood." 

In  page  293,  he  tells  us  that  his  confessor  "was  a  sound  Catholic 
and  a  devout  man,"  though  in  the  preceding  page  he  exhibits  him  to  us, 
holding  principles  completely  subversive  of  faith  and  devotion,  and  as 
having  induced  himself  to  read  a  work,  which  as  the  mind  is  prepared 
for  its  reading,  is  one  of  the  best  or  one  of  the  worst  books  which  a 
theologian  could  study.  But  Mr.  White  was  by  no  means  sufficientl}' 
well  informed  to  read  it  with  advantage,  and  the  consequences  are  plainlj"- 
exhibited  by  him  in  page  293,  "Vague  fears  and  doubts  haunted  my  con- 
science for  many  days,"  and  again,  "His  abilities  and  affection  to  me 
had  obtained  a  most  perfect  command  over  my  mind,  and  it  was  not  long 
before  I  could  match  him  in  mental  boldness,  on  points  unconnected 
with  articles  of  faith."  Thus,  before  he  received  subdeaconship  the 
groundwork  of  infidelity  was  laid;  and  he  had  neglected  a  powerful 
remedy,  his  attention  to  dull  divinity.  This  "sound  Catholic  and  de- 
vout man,"  in  pages  290,  291,  293,  and  294  is,  evidently,  a  covert  infideJ, 
who  gradually  sapped  the  faith  of  a  club  of  unfortunate  young  men,  of 
whom  White  was  one;  this  is  the  confessor  who  permitted  this  young 
man  to  enter  into  a  state  for  which  by  his  contrivance  he  was  thoroughly 
disqualified.  I  cannot  avoid  making  one  extract,  to  show  their  systematic 
progress.  It  may  be  useful,  if  for  no  other  purpose  than  to  show,  if 
this  letter  should  fall  into  the  hands  of  young  men  who  study  religion, 
the  great  cause  of  infidelity;  viz.  the  substitution  of  speculative  theory, 
for  evident  fact. 

"It  w^as  the  favorite  amusement  of  myself  and  those  constant  as- 
sociates of  my  youth  that  formed  the  knot  of  friends,  of  whom  the  often 
mentioned  ynajor  collegian  was  the  center  and  guide,  to  examine  all  our 
feelings,  in  order  to  resolve  them  into  some  general  law,  and  trace  them 
to  their  simple  elements.  This  habit  of  analysis  and  generalization  ex- 
tended itself  to  the  customs  and  habits  of  the  country,  and  the  daily  in- 
cidents of  life,  till  in  the  course  of  time  it  produced  in  me  the  deceitful, 
though  not  uncommon  notion,  that  all  knowledge  is  the  result  of  de- 
veloped principles,  and  gave  me  a  distaste  for  every  book  that  was  not 
cast  into  a  regular  theory. ' ' 

"While  I  w^as  thus  amused  and  deceived  by  the  activity  of  my 
mind,  without  endeavoring  to  give  it  the  weight  and  steadiness  which  de- 
pends upon  the  knowledge  of  facts,  Catholicism  with  its  ten  thousand 
rules  and  practices,  was  mechanically  keeping  up  the  ill-contrived  struc- 
ture of  devotion,  which  it  had  raised  more  in  my  fancy  than  my  heart. 
It  had  now  to  contend,  however,  with  an  enemy  whom  nothing  but  fixed 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  235 

hope  can  keep  within  bonds — but  religion  had  left  me  no  hope.  Instead 
of  engaging  love  on  her  side,  she  had  forced  him  into  an  inseparable 
league  with  immorality." 

Now,  with  the  materials  before  us,  I  shall  give  what  I  conceive  the 
author  of  both  sets  of  letters  to  have  been,  at  the  period  of  his  ordina- 
tion. I  believe  him  to  have  been  originally  a  well  disposed  youth,  who, 
if  he  had  fallen  into  proper  hands  might  have  been  an  intelligent,  well- 
informed,  and  pious  clergyman,  though  more  brilliant  than  learned;  or 
a  useful  member  of  society  in  some  other  station.  But  at  an  early  period 
he  indulged  his  vanity  and  was  insincere  in  his  declarations.  Of  this 
insincerity  he  repented,  and  his  vanity  would  have  been  cured  by  God's 
grace  and  his  own  experience.  Unfortunately  however  for  him,  he  en- 
tered too  early  upon  his  more  severe  studies,  than  which  perhaps  a  greater 
literary  misfortune  cannot  occur;  whilst  his  fancy  might  have  been  cul- 
tivated it  was  restrained :  he  became  disgusted  with  the  dry  and  abstruse 
treatises  which  were  prematurely  made  his  task.  A  covert  infidel  of 
ability,  and  taste,  and  ingenuity,  who  had  disguised  himself  in  a  cassock, 
won  his  affections,  indulged  his  taste,  cultivated  his  fancy,  misled  his 
judgment,  made  him  deceive  and  disobey  his  spiritual  director,  weaned 
him  from  his  classes,  seduced  him  to  scepticism,  and  usurped  the  place  of 
his  confessor.  He  now  was  bereft  of  the  religion  of  the  heart,  and  ad- 
hered to  external  observances  which  became  tiresome  and  disgusting, 
save  when  they  amused  the  fancy.  The  young  man  himself  did  not  sus- 
pect that  his  faith  was  undermined.  At  the  age  when  he  was  most  sus- 
ceptible of  love,  he  desires  to  abandon  a  state  for  which  he  is  now  totally 
disqualified;  his  treacherous  guide  urges  him  to  undertake  obligations 
from  which  he  should  have  recoiled  as  he  actually  did,  and  the  tears  of 
a  fond  mother  ignorant  of  the  state  of  his  soul,  and  his  own  desire  of 
gratifying  his  family,  come  to  aid  those  importunities.  In  contradiction 
to  every  principle  of  religion  and  prudence,  he  assumes  the  obligations 
of  a  state  to  which  he  was  averse  and  for  which  he  was  disqualified.  I 
believe  Mr.  White  has  no  reason  to  complain  of  this  view.  If  he  has 
acted  improperly  in  selecting  and  freely  entering  upon  such  a  state  of 
life,  he  has  to  blame  his  own  indiscretion,  not  the  laws  of  that  state 
which  he  freely,  though  improperly  and  perhaps  criminally  undertoolc 
to  observe. 

Having  freely  entered  upon  the  state,  he  ought  to  have  observed  its 
laws ;  and  if  he  found  any  difficulty,  that  God,  who  always  grants  his  aid 
to  those  who  avoid  temptation  and  have  recourse,  with  proper  disposi- 
tions, to  prayer  and  to  the  sacraments,  would  have  preserved  him.  But 
this  gentleman  is  one  of  those  beings  whose  ardent  minds  too  often  mis- 


236  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


lead  them;  they  believe  momentary  enthusiasm  to  to  be  the  evidence  of 
unshaken  resolution;  and  passing  excitement  to  be  the  lasting  fervor  of 
steady  zeal ;  they  rely  upon  their  strength ;  they  neglect  precaution ;  and 
they  quickly  run  from  one  extreme  to  another.  Mr.  White,  before  he 
became  a  subdeacon,  was  a  criminal  deceived  by  the  activity  of  his  own 
mind,  and  having  occasional  remorse,  page  293.  He  made  an  effort  to 
prepare  for  orders,  and  indulged  a  hope  of  preserving  some  feeling  of 
religion  through  life.  But  how  could  he  ?  His  faith  was  undermined— 
his  heart  lost  all  religious  sentiment — devotion  had  some  power  over  his 
fancy,  page  294.  But  this  is  not  religion ;  this  forms  no  foundation  for 
virtue ;  this  is  merely  a  delusion.  He  consequently  finds  the  law  of  his 
state  "  a  f oe  to  his  virtue, ' '  he  breaks  loose  more  than  once,  and  as  often 
is  reclaimed  before  his  elevation  to  the  priesthood,  page  294.  This  needs 
no  explanation ;  but  if  it  did,  the  next  page  furnishes  it  in  abundance. 

After  describing,  in  page  294,  another  of  those  transitory  illusions  of 
his  fancy ;  in  page  295,  describing  his  sentiments  on  the  day  of  his  ordi- 
nation to  the  priesthood,  and  the  celebration  of  his  first  mass,  he  has  the 
following  passage: 

' '  I  had  still  a  heart  it  is  true — a  heart  ready  to  burst  at  the  sight  of 
my  parents  on  their  knees,  while  impressing  the  first  kiss  upon  my  newly 
consecrated  hands ;  but  it  was  dead  to  the  charms  of  beauty.  Among  the 
friendly  crowds  that  surrounded  me  for  the  same  purpose  were  those 
lips,  which,  but  a  few  months  before,  I  would  have  died  to  press ;  yet  I 
could  but  just  mark  their  superior  softness." 

I  believe  we  need  no  more  proof  to  convince  us,  that  a  more  im- 
proper candidate  for  orders  was  seldom,  if  ever  raised  to  the  priesthood. 
Just  reflect,  my  friends ;  you  who  know  what  we  expect  from  our  clergy, 
reflect  upon  the  prospects  of  a  man  who  makes  love  and  infidelity  his 
preparations  for  the  priesthod;  and  whose  mind,  on  the  solemn  day  of 
his  ordination,  could  indulge  such  thoughts  as  those  here  alluded  to. 
Can  you  wonder  that  this  man  should  become  an  apostate  ?  Did  Bishop 
Kemp  read  the  Letters  of  Dohlado,  and  compare  the  two  accounts  which 
his  hero  gives  of  himself,  before  he  insults  the  Catholic  Church  by  ad- 
ducing this  profligate  man  as  a  good  specimen  of  her  clergy  ?  Is  this  the 
witness  so  eminently  qualified  to  inform  the  world  of  the  character  of  our 
Church. 

Having  been  ordained  priest,  he  received  no  benefice  until  nearly  a 
year  had  elapsed.  Evidence  page  17.  In  page  18,  he  informs  us  that  he 
now  conceived  himself  bound  to  devote  the  whole  of  his  leisure  time  to 
the  study  of  religion.  In  his  other  letters,  page  295,  he  tells  us  that,  im- 
mediately after  his  ordination, 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    AV  H  I  T  E  237 

' '  To  exercise  the  privileges  of  my  office  for  the  benefit  of  my  fellow- 
creatures,  was  now  my  exclusive  aim  and  purpose.  I  daily  celebrated 
mass,  with  due  preparation,  preached  often,  and  rejected  none  that  ap- 
plied to  me  for  confession.  The  best  ascetic  writers  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  were  constantly  in  my  hands.  I  made  a  study  of  the  fathers ;  but, 
though  I  had  the  Scriptures  among  my  books,  it  was,  according  to  cus- 
tom, more  for  reference  than  perusal.  These  feelings,  this  state  of  men- 
tal abstraction,  is  by  no  means  uncommon,  for  a  time,  among  young 
priests  whose  hearts  have  not  been  withered  by  a  course  of  premature 
profligacy. ' ' 

To  me  it  is  matter  of  perfect  indifference  which  of  those  two  in- 
compatible assertions  is  the  truth,  or  whether  either  is  true.  My  own 
opinion  is,  that  neither  accords  with  the  fact ;  but  I  will  suppose  him  to 
have  stated  the  truth  in  Dohlado's  Letters,  as  it  will  be  giving  him  that 
position  most  favorable  to  himself.  The  question  will  then  be,  how  long 
this  course  of  study  continued.  He  tells  us,  page  295,  ' '  I  shall  conclude 
my  narrative,  by  faithfully  relating  the  origin  and  progress  of  the  total 
change  which  took  place  in  my  mind,  within  little  more  than  a  year  after 
I  had  received  priest's  orders."  This  accords  pretty  well  with  the 
statement  in  page  18  of  The  Evidence,  as  to  time.  "My  religious  belief 
had  hitherto  been  undisturbed;  but  light  clouds  of  doubt  began  now 
to  pass  over  my  mind,  which  the  warmth  of  devotion  soon  dissipated. 
Yet  they  would  gather  again  and  again,  with  an  increased  darkness 
which  prayer  would  scarcely  dispel."  It  is  not,  however,  so  easy  to 
reconcile  light  clouds  of  doubt,  soon  dissipated,  to  a  total  change  of 
mind;  nor  does  this  last  agree  with  recurring  darkness  which  prayer 
could  scarcely  dispel ;  nor  can  I  reconcile  this  assertion,  that  his  religious 
belief  had  been  hitherto  undisturbed  with  his  statement,  Letters,  page 
293,  that  even  three  or  four  years  before,  "vague  fears  and  doubts 
haunted  his  conscience  for  many  days. ' '  I  care  not  which  of  those  con- 
tradictions is  the  truth.  My  object  is  only  to  learn  Mr.  White's  moral 
character,  as  a  credible  witness,  from  himself.  He  has  now  been  ex- 
hibited up  to  the  period  when  his  settled  infidelity  is  about  to  com- 
mence ;  and  by  comparing  his  account  of  himself  in  his  Evidence  against 
our  Church,  and  that  given  by  him  in  his  Letters  of  Dohlado,  we  per- 
ceive that  nothing  can  be  more  natural  than  to  calculate  upon  his  infi- 
delity,'unless  it  should  be  prevented  by  a  miracle  of  grace.  And  nothing 
is  more  palpable,  than  that  much  of  what  he  wrote  must  to  his  own 
knowledge  be  totally  untrue. 

He  states  in  both  productions,  that  his  unbelief  was  a  consequence 
of  the  principles  of  our  Church.     This  is  not  the  time  to  examine  that 


238  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

assertion ;  we  shall  have  it  fully  under  our  examination  more  than  once 
hereafter.    In  pages  18  and  19  of  his  Evidence  is  the  following  passage: 

"That  immorality  and  levity  are  always  the  source  of  unbelief,  the 
experience  of  my  own  case,  and  my  intimate  acquaintance  with  many 
others,  enables  me  most  positively  to  deny.  As  to  myself,  I  declare  most 
solemnly,  that  my  rejection  of  Christianity  took  place  at  a  period,  when 
my  conscience  could  not  reproach  me  with  any  open  breach  of  duty,  but 
those  committed  several  years  before:  that  during  the  transition  from 
religious  belief  to  incredulity,  the  horror  of  sins  against  the  faith,  deeply 
implanted  by  education  in  my  soul,  haunted  me  night  and  day ;  and  that 
I  exerted  all  the  powers  of  my  mind  to  counteract  the  involuntary  doubts, 
which  were  daily  acquiring  an  irresistible  strength.  In  this  distress,  I 
brought  to  remembrance  all  the  arguments  for  the  truth  of  the  Christian 
religion,  which  I  had  studied  in  the  French  apologists.  I  read  other 
works  of  the  same  kind;  and  having  to  preach,  in  the  execution  of  my 
office,  to  the  royal  brigade  of  carbineers,  who  came  to  worship  the  body 
of  St.  Ferdinand,  preserved  in  the  king's  chapel  I  chose  the  subject  of 
infidelity,  on  which  I  delivered  an  elaborate  discourse.  But  the  fatal 
crisis  was  at  hand.  At  the  end  of  a  year,  from  the  preaching  of  this 
sermon,  the  confession  is  painful,  indeed,  yet  due  to  religion  itself — I 
was  bordering  on  atheism." 

I  w^ould  merely  ask  Bishop  Kemp,  in  this  place,  what  he  thinks  of 
Mr.  White's  credibility  in  liis  assertion  of  purity  of  conscience?  or,  if 
his  conscience  did  not  reproach  him,  what  sort  of  conscience  must  he 
have  had?  Again,  I  shall  object  to  his  evidence  being  received  in  re- 
spect to  the  feelings  of  others,  whilst  I  am  occupied  in  showing  that  he 
is  not  worthy  of  credit  in  testifying  his  own.  In  his  Letters,  page  297, 
he  writes: 

"The  involuntary  train,  however,  both  of  feeling  and  of  thought, 
which  w^as  to  make  me  break  out  in  complete  rebellion,  had  long  been 
sapping  the  foundation  of  my  faith,  without  my  being  aware  that  the 
whole  structure  nodded  to  its  ruin." 

In  the  same  page,  he  gives  us  as  full  evidence,  that  not  only  was  his 
faith  during  a  long  time  in  danger,  but  that  it  was  actually  destroyed: 

"My  heart  sinks  within  me  at  the  view  of  the  interminable  list  of 
offenses,  every  one  of  which  may  finally  plunge  me  into  the  everlasting 
flames.  Everlasting!  and  why  so?  Can  there  be  revenge  or  cruelty  in 
the  Almighty  ?  Such  were  the  harassing  thoughts  with  which  I  wrestled 
day  and  night.  Prostrate  upon  my  knees,  I  daily  prayed  for  deliverance ; 
but  my  prayers  were  not  heard.  I  tried  to  strengthen  my  faith,  by  read- 
ing Bergier,  and  some  of  the  French  apologists  for  Christianity.     But 


two  CALUMNIES   OF   J.  BLANCO  WHITE  239 


what  can  they  avail  a  doubting  Catholic  ?  His  system  of  faith  is  indivis- 
ible; whatever  proves  it  all,  proves  absurdity.  To  argue  with  a  doubt- 
ing Catholic  is  to  encourage  and  hasten  his  desertion.  Chateaubriand 
has  perfectly  understood  the  nature  of  his  task;  and,  by  engaging  the 
feelings  and  imagination  in  defence  of  his  creed,  has  given  it  the  fairest 
chance  against  the  dry  and  tasteless  philosophy  of  his  countrymen.  His 
book  propped  up  my  faith  for  a  while. ' ' 

With  what  feelings  can  the  Right  Reverend  and  reverend  gentlemen 
exhibit  as  peculiarly  worthy  of  belief,  a  man  who  so  frequently  and 
palpably  contradicts  himself? 

Here  is  then  the  only  proper  explanation  of  his  state  of  belief  from 
under  his  own  hand.  What  is  the  doubt  which  tortures  him?  Purga- 
tory? No — Hell.  And  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  is  not  so  complais- 
ant as  to  be  satisfied  with  Purgatory  alone.  Will  Bishop  Kemp  allow 
Mr.  White  to  strike  out  such  doctrines  as  do  not  suit  his  taste?  Will 
the  Presbyterian  and  Methodist  patrons  of  this  Book  of  Evidence  give  up 
their  doctrine  of  hell  ?  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  taught  this  amongst 
other  absurdities,  and  her  faith  was  indivisible.  Mr.  White  had  long 
been  prepaTed  for  this  change;  his  conscience  still  recollected  the  "lips  of 
superior  softness, ' '  and  all  those  desires  to  gratify  which  he  ' '  could  have 
died;"  that  conscience  recollected  those  "crimes,"  and  that  "remorse," 
the  "misery  that  embittered  youth,"  and  why  should  God  be  cruel? 
Yet  the  Catholic  Church  could  not  give  up  one  tittle.  Is  this  witness  to 
be  credited,  when  he  asserts  that  his  infidelity  was  not  the  result  of  a 
troubled  conscience  ?  After  the  exhibition  which  he  has  made  of  himself, 
how  could  he  assert  as  he  does,  page  20  of  his  Evidence,  "When  I  ex- 
amined the  state  of  my  mind  previous  to  my  rejecting  the  Christian  faith, 
I  cannot  recollect  any  thing  in  it  but  what  is  in  perfect  accordance  with 
that  form  of  religion  in  which  I  was  educated. ' '  In  how  many  palpable 
contradictions  has  he  not  been  detected?  And  yet  this  man  is  to  be  a 
witness  against  the  Roman  Catholic  world !  Nay,  he  is  to  testify  against 
others  also.  Observe  how  kindly  he  treats  his  old  Catholic  friends,  when 
compared  with  some  of  his  American  patrons.  Letters  of  Dohlado, 
page  30: 

"Enthusiasm — that  bastard  of  religious  liberty,  that  vigorous  weed 
of  Protestantism — does  not  thrive  under  the  jealousy  of  infallible  author- 
ity. Catholicism,  it  is  true,  has  in  a  few  instances  produced  a  sort  of 
splendid  madness;  but  its  visions  and  trances  partake  largely  of  the 
tameness  of  a  mind  previously  exhausted  by  fears  and  agonies  meekly 
borne  under  the  authority  of  a  priest.  The  throes  of  the  new  birth  har- 
row up  the  mind  of  a  Methodist,  and  give  it  all  that  phrenzied  energy  of 


240  CONTROVEKSY  Vol. 

despaii-,  which  often  settles  into  the  all-hoping,  all-daring  raptures  of  the 
enthusiast. ' ' 

"What  say  his  Methodist  patrons  to  this  ?  I  shall  now  close  this  letter 
with  a  statement  of  our  progress.  This  redoubtable  witness  in  his  ac- 
count of  himself  in  his  Evidence  against  Catholics  exhibits  for  himself  to 
us,  the  picture  of  a  well-disposed,  pure,  ingenuous,  religious  youth,  led 
through  the  path  of  virtue  and  learning  to  the  altar,  but  becoming  an 
infidel  because  of  the  absurdities  of  Catholicism.  In  Dohlado's  Letters 
he  exhibits  himself  the  victim  of  infidelity,  and  a  gross  criminal,  totally 
disqualified  in  a  moral,  religious,  and  literary  point  of  view,  for  the  state 
of  life  which  he  embraces;  the  profligate  companion  of  profligate  infidels, 
yet  not  totally  bereft  of  all  learning  to  faith,  until  about  a  year  after  his 
ordination.  Already  his  character  as  a  witness  against  the  Catholic 
Church  is  lower  than  despicable ;  but  as  yet  we  do  not  see  him  as  low  as 
he  must  appear.  Yours,  b.  c. 

LETTER  IV. 

To  the  Roman  CatJioUcs  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends: — I  have  disposed  for  the  present  of  ]\Ir.  White's  claims 
to  ecclesiastical  rank,  ecclesiastical  information,  youthful  piety,  ordinary 
purity,  and  religious  feeling.  That  is,  in  other  words,  I  have  shown  you, 
from  his  own  writings,  that  he  was  by  no  means  a  man  of  theological 
knowledge  or  of  respectable  rank ;  I  have  shown  you  that  he  exhibits  him- 
self to  us  an  insincere,  youthful  profligate,  who  entered  into  orders  with 
every  improper  disposition,  and  who  lost  his  faith  because  of  his  having 
taken  the  most  effectual  means  for  its  destruction ;  I  have  also  shown 
you  that  his  mind  rejected,  not  the  special  doctrines  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  but  the  doctrine  of  the  existence  of  hell,  which  I  suppose  is  held 
by  Bishop  Kemp  and  the  Reverend  Mr.  Post,  to  be  good  Protestant  and 
Presbyterian  doctrine.  Of  course  one  would  now  suppose  this  gentle- 
man would  leave  the  ministry,  and  not  pocket  money  for  doing  that 
which  he  must  condemn  as  imposture.  Such  would  have  been  the  advice 
of  St.  Paul,  and  such  was  his  practice — even  this  principle  regulated  the 
practice  of  the  Martyrs ;  such  is  the  principle  which  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  enforces ;  but  it  would  indeed  be  a  very  extraordinary  presump- 
tion on  our  part  to  expect,  that  Mr.  White,  now  discovering  Catholicism 
to  be  imposture,  should  act  upon  Catholic  principles.  We  must  not 
look  for  it.  No,  Mr.  White  will  aid  the  imposture  and  take  that  money 
to  which  he  has  no  title.  In  a  Catholic,  this  would  be  a  crime,  but  in  Mr. 
White,  it  would  probably  be  reckoned  a  virtue.     A  Catholic  who  would 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  241 


confess  that  he  acted  thus,  would  be  obliged,  before  he  could  obtain  abso- 
lution, to  refund  all  this  ill-gotten  pelf  to  the  Church  which  he  had 
plundered:  but  as  Mr.  White  thinks  confession  to  be  folly,  if  he  went 
to  the  tribunal,  as  he  insinuates  he  did,  he  either  concealed  his  crimes; 
or  again  disobeyed  his  confessor ;  or  to  deceive  his  superiors,  he  went  to 
some  infidel  with  whom  he  was  leagued,  to  add  still  more  to  his  hy- 
pocrisy.   In  page  22,  he  writes, 

"To  describe  the  state  of  my  feelings  when  believing  religion  a 
fable,  I  still  found  myself  compelled  daily  to  act  as  a  minister  and  pro- 
moter of  imposture,  is  beyond  my  powers.  An  ardent  wish  seized  me  to 
fly  from  a  country  where  the  law  left  me  no  choice  between  death  and 
hypocrisy.  But  my  flight  would  have  brought  my  parents  with  sorrow 
to  the  grave." 

Upon  reading  this,  one  would  at  all  events  say,  the  man  is  a  hypo- 
crite of  the  very  worst  description  by  his  own  avowal.  But  his  love  for 
his  parents  keeps  him  in  this  state,  because  of  the  cruelty  of  his  govern- 
ment; thus,  at  least,  though  we  cannot  justify  his  "ten  years'  continu- 
ance of  daily  hypocrisy, ' '  we  must  palliate  it.  I  will  admit  no  such  ex- 
cuse for  Mr.  White,  because  nothing  can  palliate  hypocrisy.  The  mar- 
tyrs of  Christ,  that  is,  his  witnesses,  were  not  hypocrites ;  they  laid  down 
their  lives  for  truth.  Mr.  White,  our  Protestant  martyr,  declares  he  has 
no  such  disposition,  and  I  believe  him  in  this. 

I  cannot  then  rank  him  with  the  ancient  martyrs.  Mr.  White's 
grandfather  made  sacrifices  for  truth,  and  if  this  priest  inherited  the 
virtues  of  his  house,  he  would  not  be  a  hypocrite,  and  a  hypocrite  who 
deliberately  every  day,  during  ten  years,  was  the  promoter  of  impos- 
ture. 

It  is  a  fair  principle  of  commentary  upon  the  testimony  of  such  a 
man,  to  take  all  his  acknowledgements  of  guilt  to  the  full  meaning  of  the 
words  which  he  deliberately  uses.  He  has  avowed  himself  to  have  been 
during  ten  years  in  the  daily  practice  of  "promoting  imposture,"  that 
during  this  time  he  was  a  "hypocrite,"  page  22.  What  degree  of  credit 
is  due  to  a  man  who  thus  describes  himself,  it  is  for  those  who  receive  his 
testimony  to  determine ;  for  my  ow^n  part,  if  I  was  upon  a  jury  to  decide 
in  any  ordinary  case  w^hich  might  come  before  a  court ;  and  one  of  the 
witnesses  made  such  an  avowal  respecting  himself,  I  would,  in  consid- 
ering the  case,  discharge  his  testimony  from  my  view  altogether.  Would 
any  person  give  it  full  credit  ?  I  shall  only  say  of  Mr.  WTiite  at  present, 
that  his  testimony  in  his  own  favor  is  of  an  extremely  equivocal  char- 
acter, and  not  to  be  admitted  without  extraordinary  scrutiny  and  strong 
corroboration. 


242  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

He  says  that  he  continued  to  be  guilty  of  hypocrisy  and  imposture, 
because  there  was  no  other  mode  left  to  him  by  the  barbarous  laws  of 
his  country  to  save  his  life,  except  one  which  would  bring  down  his 
parents  to  the  grave  with  sorrow.  In  the  first  place  this  is  nothing  short 
of  a  plain  untruth.  If  he  resigned  his  clerical  office,  as  very  many 
persons  of  eminent  piety  have  done,  he  need  neither  leave  his  parents, 
nor  expose  himself  to  that  death  of  which  he  stood  so  much  in  terror. 
In  such  a  case  he  would  cease  to  promote  what  he  calls  imposture,  and  he 
could  continue  to  soothe  his  parents.  But  if  the  gentleman  made  this 
resignation,  where  would  he  have  the  means  of  support?  An  honest 
man,  a  man  who  has  any  feeling  of  conscience,  never  asks  such  a  ques- 
tion. If  our  witness  then  kept  his  office  by  which  he  was  obliged  "daily 
to  promote  imposture,"  in  order  to  have  the  means  of  support,  the  result 
is  inevitably:  that  our  informant  continued  during  ten  years  to  be  a 
hypocrite,  and  an  impostor,  for  his  support.  Good  God !  what  a  witness 
has  the  conclave  of  discordant  divines  produced  against  Catholicism !  !  ! 
Painful  as  is  the  alternate  between  want  and  systematic  imposture,  the 
wretch  who  is  brought  to  receive  sentence  for  his  crime  under  a  verdict 
of  guilt  in  our  courts,  may  indeed  plead  the  temptations  of  want  to  miti- 
gate the  severity  of  the  sentence.  Humanity  will  shed  a  tear,  and  mercy 
will  sue  with  justice  to  alleviate  the  infliction  which  the  laws  of  God  and 
man  require.  But  Mr.  White  cannot  have  even  this  excuse,  unless  he 
was  guilty  of  deliberate  fraud  at  the  time  of  his  ordination.  His  first 
benefice  was  that  which  he  calls  a  fellowship  in  the  college  of  St.  Mary  a 
Jesu,  at  Seville:  because  though  as  unlike  as  was  the  frog  to  the  ox,  it 
would  have  the  bloated  appearance  of  the  dignity  of  a  fellowship  of  one 
of  the  Oxford  Colleges,  and  our  witness  would  have  the  semblance  of 
erudition.  Previously  to  this  he  had  been  ordained  subdeacon,  page  17. 
In  Spain  he  could  not  have  received  this  order  as  a  secular,  unless  he  had 
exhibited  to  the  Bishop  or  to  his  official,  his  good  title  to  a  benefice,  or  to 
a  fixed  patrimonial  or  personal  property  fully  sufficient  to  support  him 
as  a  clergyman ;  and  on  the  day  of  his  ordination  he  must  have  been 
solemnly  called  to  come  forward  for  ordination  upon  the  ground  of  that 
special  title.  Mr.  White  was  a  secular,  without  a  benefice,  and  conse- 
quently must  have  been  ordained  upon  the  title  of  his  patrimonial 
property  fixed  upon  him,  and  to  which  he  had  a  good  legal  and  equitable 
claim,  or  having  a  good  personal  property:  he  then  must  have  been 
guilty  of  gross  fraud  upon  the  very  day  of  his  ordination,  or  he  could 
not  have  been  driven  by  want  to  the  necessitj^  of  being  a  hypocrite  and 
an  impostor,  who  repeated  those  crimes  daily  during  ten  years.  I  leave 
to  the  Right  Reverend  Doctor  Kemp,  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  243 


Church  of  Maryland,  and  to  his  Reverend  associates  to  select  which  side 
they  please  of  the  alternative ;  but  one  or  the  other  they  must  inevitably 
take.  I  believe  the  gentlemen  will  hardly  contest  with  me  now  the  truth 
of  my  assertion  that  their  witness,  who  must  have  known  his  own  mo- 
tives, was  guilty  of  a  falsehood,  when  he  asserted,  that  his  filial  affection 
and  the  cruel  laws  of  his  country,  left  him  no  alternative;  that  it  be- 
came necessary  for  him  to  be  an  impostor  and  a  hypocrite. 

To  catch  such  a  man  as  this  in  trifling  fibs,  is  only  to  pluck  a  leaf 
from  a  forest :  still  there  are  some  falsehoods  which  for  their  very  appear- 
ance will  be  sufficient  to  arrest  our  observation.  Mr.  White  is  continually 
forcing  upon  our  attention,  his  fine  feelings  of  family  affection.  It  may 
not  be  amiss  to  examine  a  few  specimens.  I  have  drawn  you  to  view  his 
hypocrisy  by  his  insinuating  that  he  was  an  impostor  out  of  respect  to 
his  parents ;  the  same  motive  he  says,  made  him  take  orders  when  he 
knew  that  he  ought  not.  In  a  word,  nothing  was  wrong  in  his  whole 
conduct  which  did  not  flow  from  affection  for  some  one  of  his  family. 

In  page  15,  of  his  Evidence,  he  tells  us  that  he  "hallowed  the  pages 
of  another  work  {Letters  from  Spain,  by  Don  Leucadio  Doblado),  with 
the  character  of  his  parents, ' ' — ' '  that  such  were  the  purity,  the  benevo- 
lence and  the  angelic  piety  of  his  father's  life,  that  at  his  death,  multi- 
tudes of  people  thronged  the  house  to  indulge  the  last  view  of  the  dead 
body."  In  page  29,  of  Doblado' s  Letters  he  tells  us  of  his  father:  "un- 
der these  unpromising  circumstances  (pecuniary  losses)  he  married  his 
mother,  who  if  she  could  add  but  little  to  her  husband's  fortune,  yet 
brought  him  a  treasure  of  love  and  virtue,  which  he  found  constantly  in- 
creasing, till  death  removed  him  on  the  first  approaches  of  old  age. ' '  la 
page  151,  of  his  Evidence,  he  tells  us  of  a  younger  sister,  "at  the  age 
of  twenty  she  left  an  infirm  mother  to  the  care  of  servants  and  strangers, 
and  shut  herself  up  in  a  convent. ' '  Of  course  if  the  old  gentleman  was 
not  living,  and  her  good  son  Joseph,  what  a  profanation  of  the  name  of 
two  venerable  patriarchs !  would  not  look  after  her,  she  was  left  only  to 
servants  and  strangers.  Mr.  White  gives  us  the  account  of  his  hearing 
his  sister's  confession  after  she  became  a  nun,  and  she  was  in  the  con- 
vent when  he  left  Spain.  In  page  26,  this  affectionate  son  is  nearly 
heart-broken  at  the  separation  from  that  father  when  he  was  leaving 
Spain,  and  the  more  so,  as  the  old  gentleman  was  now  bending  I  sup- 
pose, with  age  and  grief.  ' '  I  was  too  well  aware  of  the  firmness  of  my 
resolutions,  not  to  endure  the  most  agonizing  pain  when  I  irrevocably 
crossed  the  threshold  of  my  father's  house,  and  when  his  bending  figure 
disappeared  from  my  eyes,  at  the  first  winding  of  the  Guadalquiver, 
down  which  I  sailed.     Heaven  knows  that  time  has  not  had  power  to 


244  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

heal  the  wounds  which  this  separation  has  inflicted  on  my  heart."  This 
is  that  same  Mr.  White  who  knew  the  firmness  of  his  resolutions,  but  yet 
who  took  orders  against  his  resolution  because  this  mother  was  in  tears : 
the  same  Mr.  White  who  practiced  systematic  fraud,  robbery,  and  hy- 
pocrisy daily  during  ten  years,  lest  his  "flight  would  have  brought  his 
parents  with  sorrow  to  the  grave."  But  when  the  passages  are  placed 
in  juxta-position  who  can  tell  how  the  dead  father  came  to  life,  or  the 
living  father  was  dead,  and  his  wife  left  to  the  care  of  only  servants 
and  strangers?  But  this  is  not  my  object.  I  suppose  all  this  reconcil- 
able. I  only  wish  to  know  whether  Mr.  White  had  this  filial  affection, 
and  whether  it  was  necessary  to  be  a  hypocrite  in  order  to  save  his  parenrs 
from  sinking  with  grief  into  the  grave. 

This  affectionate  son  has  shamefully  treated  his  virtuous  parent.s 
in  his  Doblado's  Letters.    In  page  29,  he  indeed  informs  us, 

"My  mother  was  of  honorable  parentage.  She  was  brought  up  in 
that  absence  of  mental  cultivation  which  prevails  to  this  day,  among  the 
Spanish  ladies.  But  her  natural  talents  were  of  a  superior  cast.  She 
was  lively,  pretty,  and  sang  sweetly.  Under  the  influence  of  a  happier 
country,  her  pleasing  vivacity,  the  quickness  of  apprehension,  and  the  ex- 
quisite degree  of  sensibility  which  animated  her  words  and  actions,  would 
have  qualified  her  to  shine  in  the  most  elegant  and  refined  circles. ' ' 

Of  his  father,  he  says,  page  29,  Doblado's  Letters, 

"Benevolence  prompted  all  my  father's  actions;  endued  him,  at 
times,  with  something  like  supernatural  vigor;  and  gave  him,  for  the 
good  of  his  fellow-creatures,  the  courage  and  decision  he  wanted  in 
whatever  concerned  himself.  With  hardly  any  thing  to  spare,  I  do  not 
recollect  a  time  when  our  house  was  not  a  source  of  relief  and  consola- 
tion to  some  families  of  such  as,  by  a  characteristic  and  feeling  appel- 
lation, are  called  among  us  the  blushing  poor.  In  all  .seasons,  for  thirty 
years  of  his  life,  my  father  allowed  himself  no  other  relaxations,  after  the 
fatiguing  business  of  his  counting  house,  than  a  visit  to  the  general  hos- 
pital of  the  town — a  horrible  scene  of  misery,  where  four  or  five  hundred 
beggars  are  at  a  time  allowed  to  lay  themselves  down  and  die,  when 
worn  out  by  want  and  disease.  Stripping  himself  of  his  coat,  and  having 
put  on  a  coarse  dress  for  the  sake  of  cleanliness,  in  which  he  was  scru- 
pulous to  a  fault,  he  w^as  employed,  till  late  at  night,  in  making  the 
beds  of  the  poor,  taking  the  helpless  in  his  arms,  and  stooping  to  such 
services  as  even  the  menials  in  attendance  were  often  loath  to  perform. 
All  this  he  did  of  his  own  free  will,  without  the  least  connection,  public 
or  private,  with  the  establishment.  Twice  he  was  at  death's  door  from 
the  contagious   influence   of  the   atmosphere  in   which  he   exerted  his 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    W  PI  I  T  E  245 

charity.    But  no  danger  would  appal  him,  when  engaged  in  administer- 
ing relief  to  the  needy.     Foreigners,  cast  by  misfortune  into  that  gulf 
of  wretchedness,  were  the  peculiar  objects  of  his  kindness." 
In  page  30,  after  describing  his  father,  he  adds: 

' '  The  principle  of  benevolence  was  not  less  powerful  in  my  mother ; 
but  her  extreme  sensibility  made  her  infinitely  more  susceptible  of  pain 
than  pleasure — of  fear  than  hope — and  for  such  characters,  a  technical 
religion  is  a  source  of  distracting  terrors.  Enthusiasm — that  bastard  of 
religious  liberty,  that  vigorous  weed  of  Protestantism — does  not  thrive 
under  the  jealous  eye  of  infallible  authority.  Catholicism,  it  is  true, 
has  in  a  few  instances,  produced  a  sort  of  splendid  madness;  but  its 
visions  and  trances  partake  largely  of  the  tameness  of  a  mind  previously 
exhausted  by  fears  and  agonies,  meekly  borne  under  the  authority  of  the 
priest.  The  throes  of  the  new  birth  harrow  up  the  mind  of  the  Methodist, 
and  give  that  phrenzied  energy  of  despair,  which  often  settles  into  the 
all-hoping,  all-daring  raptures  of  the  enthusiast.  The  Catholic  saint 
suffers  in  all  the  passiveness  of  blind  submission,  till  nature  sinks  ex- 
hausted, and  reason  gives  way  to  a  gentle  visionary  madness.  The  na- 
tural powers  of  my  mother's  intellect  were  strong  enough  to  withstand, 
unimpaired,  the  enormous  and  constant  pressure  of  religious  fears,  in 
their  most  hideous  shape.  But,  did  I  not  consider  reason  the  only  gift 
of  heaven,  which  fully  compensates  the  evils  of  this  present  existence,  I 
might  have  wished  for  its  utter  extinction,  in  the  first  and  dearest  ob- 
ject of  my  natural  affection.  Had  she  become  a  visionary,  she  had  ceased 
to  be  unhappy.  But  she  possessed  to  the  last  an  intellectual  energy  equal 
to  any  exertion,  except  one,  which  was  not  compatible  with  the  influence 
of  her  country — that  of  boldly  looking  into  the  dark  recess  where  lurked 
the  phantoms  that  harassed  and  distressed  her  mind. ' ' 

He  then  adds  of  both: 

"It  would  be  difficult,  indeed,  to  choose  two  fairer  subjects  for  ob- 
serving the  effects  of  the  religion  of  Spain.  The  results,  in  both,  were 
lamentable,  though  certainly  not  the  most  mischievous  it  is  apt  to  pro- 
duce. In  one,  we  see  mental  soberness  and  good  sense  degraded  into 
timidity  and  indecision — unbounded  goodness  of  heart,  confined  to  the 
lowest  range  of  benevolence.  In  the  other,  we  mark  talents  of  a  superior 
kind,  turned  into  the  ingenious  tormentors  of  a  heart,  whose  main  source 
of  wretchedness  was  an  exquisite  sensibility  to  the  beauty  of  virtue,  and 
an  insatiable  ardor  in  treading  the  devious  and  thorny  path  it  was  made 
to  take  for  the  'way  which  leadeth  unto  life.'  A  bolder  reason,  in  the 
first,  it  will  be  said,  and  a  reason  less  flattered  by  sensibility  in  the 


246  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

second,  would  have  made  those  virtuous  minds  more  cautious  of  yield- 
ing themselves  up  to  the  full  influence  of  ascetic  devotion. ' ' 

Is  this,  then  the  affection  of  a  son  for  his  fond  parents?  Has  that 
man  a  heart,  who  seeks  to  degrade  religion  by  mocking  the  virtues  of  his 
amiable  family?  Can  that  man  have  a  sense  of  religion,  who  violates 
the  command  of  heaven,  and  vents  his  malice  against  the  Church  of  his 
youth,  by  dishonoring  the  authors  of  his  being,  and  publishing  what 
even  a  less  ferocious  enemy  to  them  who  gave  him  birth,  would  call  the 
interesting  weakness  of  their  virtue,  but  what  this  parricide  of  family 
honor  publishes  as  the  criminality  of  their  religion?  Yet  we  shall  find 
this  man,  in  several  places,  put  on  the  semblance  of  affection  to  cry  out 
against  a  tribunal  which,  he  says,  obliges  the  parents  to  denounce  their 
criminal  children,  though  his  hand  has  struck  through  both  his  parents, 
to  endeavor  to  plunge  his  dagger  into  their  Church!  Yet,  see  what  a 
picture  he  has  drawn  of  that  father;  occupied  in  the  work  of  devoted 
charity,  whilst  probably  his  wretched  son  was  sneering,  w^th  his  infidel 
companions,  at  the  religion  w^hich  gave  such  heroism;  or  ruining  that 
innocence  which,  tainted  and  degraded  by  criminals  like  him,  was  to 
find  its  last  earthly  refuge  in  that  hospital,  and  the  last  consolations 
from  that  clergy  w^hose  name  he  has  disgraced,  and  whose  fame  he  has 
libelled.  Can  this  man  have  family  affection?  Not  content  with  dis- 
honoring his  parents,  he  betrays  his  sister ;  or  he  has  added  to  the  cata- 
logue of  his  falsehoods,  and  mocked  the  best  feelings  of  the  human 
heart.  I  believe  the  latter  to  be  the  fact.  No  brother  could  have  writ- 
ten as  he  does  in  page  151  of  his  Evidence.  Had  he  a  sister  in  the  state 
that  he  describes,  he  could  not  have  heard  her  confession,  as  I  shall  after- 
wards show,  bj^  the  strongest  evidence ;  and  if  he  could,  neither  as  a 
priest,  as  a  brother,  or  a  man,  could  he  have  published  to  the  world  the 
disease  of  her  conscience,  of  which  he  had  been  informed  under  the 
solemn  pledge  of  religion,  of  affection,  of  honor,  and  of  confidence  in  the 
most  inviolable  secrecy.  No  person  can  for  a  moment,  reflect  upon  the 
statement  without  concluding,  that  it  is  the  foul  fabrication  of  a  man 
bereft  of  all  feeling  of  affection ;  or  if  by  chance  this  is  not  the  fact,  the 
alternative  is  worse.  He  has  betrayed  the  confidence  of  his  sister,  and 
published  the  weakness  of  her  conscience  to  the  world.  Like  a  practical 
dealer  in  fable,  he  has  acquired  the  knack  of  killing  off  his  sisters,  his 
parents  and  his  friends,  as  they  cease  to  excite  interest ;  he  has,  however, 
bungled  the  mode  of  getting  rid  of  his  father.  But  no,  I  cannot — nature 
herself  will  not  allow  me,  when  such  a  man  as  this  is  before  me — I  will 
not  unbend  from  my  indignation  and  disgust,  to  exhibit  him  to  ridicule. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  247 

Mr.  White  weeps  for  that  sister !  As  we  have  nothing  but  the  succession 
of  tears,  it  will  be  as  well  to  admit  more. 

In  page  73  of  the  Evidence  is  the  following  passage: 

"  I  too  '  had  a  mother, '  and  such  a  mother,  as  did  I  possess  the  talents 
of  your  great  poet  ten-fold,  they  would  have  been  honored  in  doing 
homage  to  the  powers  of  her  mind  and  the  goodness  of  her  heart.  No 
woman  could  love  her  children  more  ardently,  and  none  of  those  children 
was  loved  more  vehemently  than  myself.  But  the  Roman  Catholic  creed 
had  poisoned  in  her  the  purest  source  of  affection.  I  saw  her  during  a 
long  period,  unable  to  restrain  her  tears  in  my  presence.  I  perceived 
that  she  shunned  my  conversation,  especially  when  my  university  friends 
drew  me  into  any  topics  above  those  of  domestic  talk.  I  loved  her,  and 
this  behavior  cut  me  to  the  heart.  In  my  distress,  I  applied  to  a 
friend,  to  whom  she  used  to  communicate  all  her  sorrows;  and  to  my 
utter  horror,  I  learned  that  she  suspected  my  anti-Catholic  principles. 
My  mother  was  distracted  by  the  fear,  that  she  might  be  obliged  to  ac- 
cuse me  to  the  Inquisition,  if  I  incautiously  uttered  some  condemned 
proposition  in  her  presence.  To  avoid  the  barbarous  necessity  of  being 
the  instrument  of  my  ruin,  she  could  find  no  other  means  but  that  of 
shunning  my  presence. ' ' 

The  good  old  lady  must  have  been  a  better  theologian  than  was 
her  son,  or  than  he  is  at  present ;  and  must  be  qualified  to  fill  one  of  the 
chairs  of  dull  divinity,  if  she  could  so  easily  detect  a  condemned  proposi- 
tion ;  or  else  Mr.  White  must  have  been  openly  and  glaringly  anti-Cath- 
olic in  his  expressions.  Why  need  he  remain  then  a  deliberate  impostor, 
detained  by  filial  affection,  "until  the  approach  of  Bonaparte's  troops  to 
Seville  enabled  him  to  quit  Spain,  without  exciting  suspicion  as  to  the 
real  motive  which  tore  him  for  ever  from  everything  that  he  loved?" 
More  than  suspicion  had  been  excited.  Affection  and  honesty  would 
have  warned  him  to  the  same  course. 

If  Mr.  White 's  mother  shunned  his  presence,  and  saw  him  only  with 
tears,  because  she  feared  he  would  speak,  and  she  would  denounce  him 
to  the  Inquisition,  would  it  not  be  a  greater  alleviation  to  her  grief,  that 
he  should  be  out  of  the  reach  of  this  tribunal?  Was  it  then  affection 
which  detained  him  to  practice  imposture  ten  years?  Was  it  affection 
that  kept  him  in  view  of  that  mother,  who  shunned  his  presence,  whom 
he  forced  to  tears? 

I  have  done  with  dissecting  his  heart,  to  search  for  what,  if  it  ever 
contained,  it  must  have  been  long  void  of — aft'ection  for  his  family.  My 
soul  has  been  oppressed  during  the  operation.  I  have  risen  from  it  with 
feelings  which  no  one  need  envy.     I  have  been  intimately  acquainted 


248  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


with  the  base  and  the  profligate:  they  have  unfolded  their  secrets  to  me; 
the  assassin  has  led  me  through  his  history  of  crime ;  in  the  dead  of  the 
night,  and  in  the  depth  of  his  dungeon,  the  murderer  of  his  own  child 
has  turned  away  from  viewing  the  innocent  companion  of  her  upon 
whom  he  once  doted,  but  afterwards  slew,  to  pour  the  story  of  his  woe 
into  my  ear.    I  have  recalled  to  memory  what  I  knew  of  their  affections. 
I  have  compared  it  with  what  I  believe  Mr.  White's  to  be.     I  must  un- 
hesitatingly aver,  that  if  that  man's  family  affection,  and  that  of  the 
worst  of  those,  were  weighed  against  each  other,  I  doubt  whether  that 
worst  had  less  than  I  believe  him  to  possess.     Though  they  were  great 
criminals,  no  one  of  them  attempted  to  palliate  his  own  crime  by  defam- 
ing even  the  victim  which  he  slew.    In  my  estimation,  this  hypocrite  is 
below  any  of  them ;  and  I  can  only  say,  that  there  is  but  one  alternative 
which  can  bestow  upon  him  a  claim  to  any  semblance  of  affection,  and 
which  I  hope  is  the  fact :  that  is,  that  a  considerable  portion  of  his  nar- 
rative is  fiction.     I  think  I  shall  easily  prove  much  of  it  to  be  palpably 
false.    But  yet  the  man  had  at  least  a  father  and  a  mother.    He  tells  us 
that  he  hallowed  the  pages  of  a  book  by  the  record  of  their  virtues ;  and 
then  tells  us  those  virtues,  became  the  fears  of  superstitious  weakness, 
and  the  publication  of  [this]  weakness  to  the  world,  in  order  to  enslave 
his  father's  father's  country,  is  the  filial  affection  of  the  Reverend  Joseph 
Blanco  White !  !  !     Come,  Bishop  Kemp,  take  this  man  to  your  bosom — 
cherish  him  who  stung  his  mother — embrace  him  whose  fangs  have  not 
spared  his  father— hold  forth  to  your  flock,  as  a  model  of  affection,  the 
reptile  who  has  bedaubed  his  sister.     Doctor  Wilmer  recognizes  in  him 
some  congeniality  of  feeling,  as  regards  the  ancient  Church;  the  Rev- 
erend Mr.  Hawley  is  too  modest  to  march  in  front  to  the  attack;  but 
covered  by  you  both,  he  believes  himself  secure.     Before  I  close  my  ex- 
amination of  this  apostate  priest,  I  shall  convince  even  you,  if  you  do  not 
already  know  it,  that  he  is  as  completely  at  variance  with  the  doctrines  of 
the  Church  of  England  as  he  is  with  mine.    I  have  already  shown,  that 
he  likes  Methodists  as  little.    I  assure  you,  your  Presbyterian  associates 
shall  have  no  victory.     Why  then  did  you  bring  him  forward?     My 
friends,  this  Right  Reverend  Gentleman  and  his  associates  shall  get  Mr. 
White's  character  more  fully  developed  in  my  next. 

Yours,  B.  c. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  249 


LETTER  V. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Oct.  2,  1826. 
To  the  Roman  CatJiolics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends — The  occupations  of  men  are  of  such  a  nature,  as  gen- 
erally to  require  from  each  individual  his  principal,  if  not  his  exclusive 
attention  to  some  one  study  or  employment ;  and  as  the  human  mind  is 
extremely  limited  in  its  faculties,  it  must  generally  happen  that  they  who 
are  deeply  engaged  in  any  one  department,  can  be  only  imperfectly  ac- 
quainted with  all  others.  The  common  sense  of  mankind  and  the  ex- 
perience of  ages  and  of  nations,  has  therefore  established  the  general  max- 
im, that  the  best  judge  of  any  science  or  art,  is  a  person  who  has  made 
that  science,  or  that  art  his  principal  study.  The  great  body  of  mankind 
will  observe  any  glaring  defect,  or  monstrous  irregularity  in  a  public 
building ;  others  will  frequently  feel,  even  where  no  palpable  error  is  seen, 
that  something  is  amiss,  in  the  appearance,  though  they  cannot  partic- 
ularize the  fault ;  but  a  skilful  architect  not  only  perceives  the  want  of 
symmetry,  but  can  specify  the  exact  seat  and  the  extent  of  the  blunder ; 
and  few  if  any,  save  they  who  are  conversant  with  the  object  of  the  struc- 
ture and  the  details  of  the  business  for  which  it  is  to  be  employed,  can  say 
whether  its  apartments  are  judiciously  and  conveniently  laid  out.  Prob- 
ably, upon  this  principle,  we  may  excuse  the  commendators  of  Blanco 
White,  except  for  their  uncalled  for  interference. 

Bishop  Kemp  and  his  associates,  are  pleased  to  call  our  religion,  "a 
wonderful  system. ' '  And  so  it  is.  It  is  a  system  deriving  its  origin  f roin 
the  Deity,  who  first  planted  it  in  the  human  heart ;  he  enabled  our  great 
parent  in  the  first  development  of  his  understanding  to  discover  the  only 
principle  which  this  whole  system  comprises,  man  is  bound  to  adore  his 
creator.  Yes,  my  friends!  this  is  the  only  principle  of  our  Church;  this 
is  the  summary  of  our  religion.  This  was  discovered  by  Adam  in  the 
day  of  his  innocence ;  and  it  was  recollected  by  Adam  in  the  midst  of  the 
gloom  which  succeeded  to  his  fall ;  it  was  transmitted  by  him  as  the  most 
valuable  legacy  to  his  children.  Patriarchal  tradition  preserved  it  to  the 
days  of  the  deluge.  It  remained  with  Noe  in  the  Ark;  and  it  came 
forth  to  cheer  him  in  the  midst  of  the  desolation  with  which  he  was  sur- 
rounded upon  the  hills  of  Armenia;  he  beheld  its  calm  and  peaceful 
beauty  in  the  rainbow ;  it  preserved  his  faith  at  the  bloody  sacrifice,  and 
enkindled  his  hope  when  the  holocaust  was  consumed  upon  the  blazing 
altar.  It  was  misapplied  and  misdirected  at  Babel ;  and  the  roaming  out- 
casts who  were  spread  over  the  face  of  the  earth,  still  in  their  migration 
preserved  the  principle  though  they  mistook  the  object  of  adoration. 


250  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


But  the  young  Chaldean  who  came  out  from  his  father's  house  and  from 
his  kindred,  brought  it  with  him  in  purity,  to  the  land  of  strangers  which 
was  to  be  given  as  an  inheritance  to  his  descendants;  in  the  valley  of 
vision  and  upon  the  hill  of  sacrifiee,  he  conversed  with  the  God  of  his 
fathers,  who  gave  to  him  ordinances  calculated  to  preserve  the  principle 
from  the  corruptions  of  human  speculation.    That  God  went  down  with 
Joseph  into   Egypt,   and   after  exhibiting  his  might  by  the  hand   of 
Moses,  he  brought  his  people  through  the  ya\\Tiing  valley  of  the  Red  Sea. 
In  the  midst  of  wonders  he  proclaimed  his  law,  and  gave  its  sanction  at 
Sinai.     He  established  then  a  priesthood  and  a  tribunal  for  the  careful 
preservation  of  that  original  principle  which  the  varying  speculations  of 
restless  men  had  so  disguised  throughout  the  world,  as  to  make  the  ob- 
jects of  their  adoration  every  real  vice  and  every  imaginary  virtue;  as 
well  as  every  material  being,  from  the  glorious  sun  of  Persia  to  the 
putrid  leek  of  Egypt.    Again  at  the  appointed  time;  the  heavens  were 
rent ;  the  great  teacher  descended,  an  incarnate  God  wrought  wonders  in 
Judea;  the  Sun  of  Justice  succeeded  to  that  orb  which  had  only  an- 
nounced his  glories  by  reflection :  the  twinkling  prophets  were  lost  in  the 
brilliancy  of  his  light.     The  new  tribunal  is  established,  that  tribunal 
whose  commission  was  extended  to  every  nation,  and  all  days  to  the  end 
of  time.    In  wonders,  the  Apostles  go  forth  to  victory,  and  to  death.    In 
wonders,  the  world  is  convinced  that  God  has  directed  how  the  great 
principle  should  be  carried  into  practice.    But  the  human  mind  is  rest- 
less, and  speculation  again  misleads  from  the  evidence  of  fact :  man  be- 
gins to  inquire  how  can  God  do  those  things,  instead  of  inquiring  whether 
he  has  proof  of  God's  declaration  that  he  has  done  them.     Separations 
are  made,  nations  fall  away,  new  nations  are  converted,  empires  are 
overturned,  kingdoms  are  destroyed,  death  sweeps  dynasties  from  their 
thrones,  their  monuments  vanish  at  the  touch  of  time;  oblivion  blots 
their  names  from  the  memories  of  men:  ages  have  passed  away,  every- 
thing else  is  new,  save  that  system  which  in  the  midst  of  wonders  the 
Son  of  God  has  permanently  established:  all  the  old  separatists  have 
dwindled  to  almost  shadows;  but  others  of  a  different  kind  have  suc- 
ceeded; every  civilized  nation  has  embraced  the  system,  and  in  every 
civilized  nation  has  it  been  opposed  and  persecuted;  and  still  in  every 
age  its  adherents  form  the  vast  majority  of  the  civilized  portion  of  the 
human  race.    It  began  in  wonders,  it  has  been  established  by  wonders, 
it  has  been  propagated  by  wonders,  its  wonders  are  seen  now,  even  now, 
amongst  ourselves,  even  before  the  eyes  of  the  originators  of  the  libel 
against  which  I  write.    The  very  perpetuation  of  the  system  is  a  wonder, 
and  will  continue  so  to  be,  until  time  shall  be  no  more.    Well  then  have 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  251 

our  opponents  described  ours  as  a  wonderful  system.    I  feel  happy  that 
in  this  at  least  we  are  agreed. 

But  in  describing  the  parts  of  this  wonderful  system;  he  who  is 
but  slightly  acquainted  with  them  is  liable  to  err.  When  Mr.  White 
has  entered  upon  this  description,  he  has  exhibited  to  us  at  once  his 
rashness,  his  malice  and  his  disregard  of  truth.  Those  my  friends  are 
very  serious  charges,  and  very  strongly  expressed;  I  can,  however,  by 
the  abundance  of  proof,  justify  my  assertion,  or  I  would  not  thus  delib- 
erately make  it.  In  looking  over  his  pages,  no  Protestant,  not  even 
Bishop  Kemp,  nor  Doctor  Hawley,  nor  any  other  of  the  zealous  gentle- 
men who  volunteered  his  own  exposure,  is  capable  of  forming  an  opinion 
as  to  Mr.  White's  credibility  upon  those  topics.  Those  gentlemen  have 
never  studied  either  the  system  of  the  theology  or  canon  law  of  the  Cath- 
olic Church;  they  are  as  little  qualified  to  give  an  opinion  upon  the 
merits  of  the  work  as  they  are  to  explain  the  composition  of  the  ring 
of  Saturn.  I  write  this  without  disrespect,  I  write  it,  with  deep  regret 
that  a  sense  of  duty  compels  me  to  expose  them,  for  my  own  protection. 
The  general  body  of  Roman  Catholics  may  feel,  in  reading  the  work, 
that  it  is  a  foul,  slanderous  misrepresentation ;  but,  except  to  persons 
who  have  made  the  canons  and  usages  of  the  Church  their  study,  the 
greater  portion  of  its  falsehood  will  not  be  specially  evident.  To  en- 
deavor by  the  exhibition  of  a  few  of  the  most  gross  misstatements  of  this 
sort  to  exhibit  Mr.  White  as  altogether  regardless  of  truth,  will  require 
from  me  a  minute  reference  to  some  laws,  customs  and  decisions  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  in  full  force  in  Spain,  which  may  have  the  appearance 
of  pedantry,  and  will  be  altogether  a  different  description  of  style  from 
that  which  the  subject  would  appear  to  demand.  I  however  have 
formed  my  opinion,  which  is,  that  my  case  will  be  best  sustained,  and 
Mr.  White  best  exposed  by  this  mode.  I  shall  therefore  follow  it  at 
present. 

Mr.  White  tells  us  in  page  151,  of  his  Evidence  respecting  a  young 
sister, 

"At  the  age  of  twenty  she  left  my  infirm  mother  to  the  care  of 
servants  and  strangers,  and  shut  herself  up  in  a  convent,  where  she 
was  not  allowed  to  see  even  the  nearest  relations." 

"Disease  soon  filled  her  conscience  with  fear  and  I  had  often  to 
endure  the  torture  of  witnessing  her  agonies  at  the  confessional." 

Of  his  eldest  sister  he  tells  us,  page  150, 

"I  saw  my  eldest  sister  at  the  age  of  two  and  twenty,  sink  slowly 
into  the  grave  within  the  walls  of  a  convent." 

"I  saw  her  on  her  death  bed.     I  obtained  that  melancholy  sight  at 


252  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

the  risk  of  bursting  my  heart,  when  in  my  capacity  of  priest,  I  heard 
her  last  confession. ' ' 

Page  144.  "The  picture  of  female  convents  requires  a  more  deli- 
cate pencil:  yet  I  cannot  find  tints  sufficiently  dark  and  gloomy  to  pour- 
tray  the  miseries  which  I  have  witnessed  in  their  inmates.  Crime  indeed 
makes  its  way  into  those  recesses,  in  spite  of  the  spiked  walls,  and  prison 
gates  which  protect  the  inhabitants.  This  I  know  with  all  the  certainty 
which  the  self  accusation  of  the  guilty,  can  give." 

That  those  guilty  who  made  this  self -accusation,  which  gave  him 
the  certainty,  were  the  nuns,  is  plain  from  the  succeeding  passage — 

"It  is  besides  a  notorious  fact,  that  the  nunneries  of  Estremadura 
and  Portugal,  are  frequently  infected  with  vice  of  the  grossest  kind. 
But  I  will  not  dwell  on  this  revolting  part  of  the  picture.  The  greater 
part  of  the  nuns,  whom  I  have  known  were  beings  of  a  much  higher 
description — females  whose  purity  owed  nothing  to  the  strong  gates  and 
high  walls  of  the  cloister,  and  so  forth. ' ' 

One  more  passage  is  all  that  I  shall  now  quote  to  place  this  side 
of  the  case  upon  its  proper  ground,  pages  138,  139  and  140. 

"Of  monks  and  friars,  I  know  comparatively  very  little,  because 
the  vague  suspicions,  of  which  even  the  most  pious  Spanish  parents 
cannot  divest  themselves,  prevented  my  frequenting  the  interior  of 
monasteries  during  my  boyhood.  My  own  judgment,  and  the  general 
disgust  which  the  prevailing  grossness  and  vulgarity  of  the  regulars 
create  in  those  who  daily  see  them,  kept  me  subsequently  away  from 
all  intercourse  with  the  cowled  tribes :  but  of  the  secular  clergy,  and  the 
amiable  life  prisoners  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  few  if  any  can  possess 
a  more  intimate  knowledge  than  myself.  .  . 

"The  intimacy  of  friendship,  the  undisguised  converse  of  sacra- 
mental confession,  opened  to  me  the  hearts  of  many,  whose  exterior 
conduct  might  have  deceived  a  common  observer.  .  .  Such  are  the 
sources  of  the  knowledge  I  possess:  God,  sorrow,  and  remorse  are  my 
witnesses. ' ' 

From  those  passages  the  obvious  conclusion  may  be  embodied  in  th-^ 
following  propositions,  viz. 

1.  That  Mr.  White  had  no  intercourse  with  the  regulars,  that  is 
with  monks  or  friars. 

2.  That  few  if  any  persons  knew  more  intimately  than  he  did,  the 
true  state  of  the  nuns. 

3.  That  he  derived  his  knowledge  from  the  undisguised  converse 
of  sacramental  confession,  and  from  the  intimacy  of  friendship. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  253 

4.  That  common  observers  might  be  deceived  by  exterior  conduct, 
but  from  his  peculiar  opportunities  he  could  not  be  so  easily  deceived. 

5.  That  in  spite  of  walls  and  spikes,  and  so  forth,  nuns  are  crim- 
inals ;  of  which  he  has  all  the  certainty  which  the  self-accusation  of  the 
guilty  can  give. 

6.  That  he  calls  God  to  witness  that  what  he  discloses  is  derived 
from  those  sources. 

7.  That  the  greater  number  of  the  nuns  whom  he  knew  were  fe- 
males of  purity. 

My  friends. — You  are  disgusted! — I  solemnly  assure  you  that  in  a 
life  of  many  trials,  I  have  never  suffered  more  exquisite  torture  than 
I  do,  at  being  obliged  to  write  in  the  manner,  and  upon  the  topic  which 

this  wretched  man,  and  his yes,  I  will  use  the  epithet,  uninformed, 

compurgators  have  forced  upon  me.  It  has  been  my  lot,  in  the  dis- 
charge of  duty,  to  bury  myself  amidst  the  worst  offscourings  of  immo- 
rality. I  have  had  during  years  to  be  made  familiar  with  loathsome 
disease  and  moral  turpitude.  You  can  scarcely  name  a  moral  or  a 
physical  plague,  with  which  I  have  not  come  in  contact.  I  have  shrunk 
from  none  of  these :  but  I  do  avow  it ;  I  shrink  back  from  Blanco  White 
and  Bishop  Kemp,  and  their  heartless  associates !  !  !  But  truth  and  jus- 
tice require  of  me  to  proceed.     Away  then  with  feelings — I  shall  do  it. 

This  miserable  man  next  asserts : 

8.  That  he  heard  the  confession  of  his  eldest  sister  on  her  death- 
bed. 

9.  That  his  younger  sister  shut  herself  up  in  a  convent  where  she 
was  not  allowed  to  see  her  nearest  relations. 

10.  That  he  often  heard  her  confession. 

11.  That  to  him  it  was  a  torture  to  witness  her  agonies  at  the  con- 
fessional, because  of  the  fears  with  which  her  conscience  was  filled. 

Now  of  those  eleven  propositions,  seven  must  of  necessity  be  pal- 
pable and  deliberate  falsehoods,  two  others  are  the  most  improbable 
which  I  can  conceive,  and  the  other  two,  viz.  those  marked  1  and  7, 
may  be  true. 

It  requires  no  depth  of  theological  learning  to  perceive  the  truth 
of  the  following  principles.  1.  The  person  who  imagining,  even  under 
delusion,  that  she  is  obliged  by  the  law  of  God  to  reveal  what  nothing 
but  obedience  to  that  law  could  induce  her  to  reveal,  makes  to  her 
brother  under  that  impression  a  declaration  which  she  is  persuaded 
no  torture  could  drag  from  him,  when  he  is  pledged  by  every  tie  which 
heaven  and  earth  hold  solemn,  to  the  most  inviolable  secresy ;  has  upon 
him  the  highest  possible  claim  to  preserve  that  secrecy,  and  should  he 


254  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

violate  it,  and  thereby  expose  the  weakness  of  his  sister !  !  can  there  be 
upon  earth  a  more  mean  and  contemptible  and  wicked  wretch  ?  2.  Sup- 
pose the  whole  system  of  the  Catholic  religion  to  be  erroneous  and  delu- 
sive :  is  there  not  a  bond  which  nothing  can  loose,  upon  him  who  receives 
from  a  deluded  being,  whom  his  office  brought  to  disclose  to  him  the 
troubles  of  her  soul,  that  he  shall  preserve  her  secrets,  though  he  and 
she  were  in  error  when  she  confided  in  him  ?  If  he  betrays  them,  ought 
he  ever  be  received  into  society?  The  betrayer  of  a  sister's  religious 
confidence !  !  ! — Could  White  have  had  a  sister  ?  Impossible !  !  ! — or  he 
knew  not  how  a  brother  ought  to  feel ! — A  brother  in  such  a  situation ! — 
It  is  folly  to  imagine  one  syllable  of  truth  in  the  whole  narrative.  Na- 
ture contradicts  the  self -accusing  hypocrite,  the  avowed  impostor!  Re- 
ligion unites  with  nature  in  the  disclaimer — a  sister  to  confess  to  her 
brother  is  next  to  unheard  of  in  the  Church  of  God.  In  the  medical 
profession,  there  is  a  creditable  delicacy  which  is  a  counterpart  to  what 
exists  in  our  Church.  The  intimacy  of  family  connexion  often  requires 
from  delicate  minds  that  a  stranger  shall  be  the  depositary  of  some  sec- 
rets, the  witness  of  some  weaknesses,  the  healer  of  some  imperfections; 
and  the  heartless  being  who  could  make  himself  master  of  his  sister's 
religious  terrors,  in  the  station  of  her  confessor,  and  publish  them  to  the 
world  contrary  to  every  law  of  the  Church,  of  nature,  and  of  God,  is 

only  to  be  equalled  by  him  who No,  there  is  not  a  miscreant  on  this 

earth  of  so  deep  a  stain  of  iniquity.  I  shall  rescue  the  remnant  of  this 
man 's  character  from  his  own  malevolence  by  proving  that  he  had  it  not 
in  his  power  to  be  as  great  a  wretch  as  he  pretends  he  was. 

The  law  of  the  Church  was  in  full  vigor  in  Spain  at  the  time  to 
which  he  alludes. 

Mr.  White  tells  us,  page  189,  of  his  Evidence,  "at  the  age  of  five 
and  thirty,  religion,  and  religion  alone,  tore  him  away  from  his  coun- 
try." 

Now  I  assert,  that  in  Spain  he  never  could  have  been  a  confessor 
to  a  convent  of  nuns,  and  therefore  that  he  was  not:  and  consequently, 
he  called  God  to  witness  a  foul  falsehood  in  page  140  of  his  Evidence. 

In  Dohlado's  Letters,  volume  3,  Magazine,  page  321,  Mr.  White  de- 
scribes convents,  particularly  those  of  Seville.  No  person  who  had  a 
particle  of  delicate  feeling  could  have  written  some  of  the  passages  con- 
tained in  this  letter.  Take  one  of  the  least  objectionable  as  a  speci- 
men: 

"But  I  cannot  discover  the  least  shadow  of  reason  or  interest  for 
the  obstinacy  which  preserves  unaltered  the  barbarous  laws  relating  to 
the  religious  vows  of  females ;  unless  it  be  that  vile  animal  jealousy  which 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  255 

persons  deprived  of  the  pleasures  of  love,  are  apt  to  mistake  for  the 
zeal  of  chastity :  such  zeal  as  your  Queen  Elizabeth  felt  for  the  purity  of 
her  maids." 

He  calls  the  convents  "Bastilles  of  superstition  where  many  a  vic- 
tim lingers  through  a  long  life  of  despair  or  insanity."  He  then  de- 
scribes the  nunneries  as  of  two  kinds,  those  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Bishop,  and  those  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Friars :  the  first  he  says 
are  comfortable:  the  latter  horrible;  of  the  latter,  there  are  some  w^hich 
are  Reformed,  in  those,  page  322,  the  nuns  see  and  converse  with  their 
parents  once  a  month.  ' '  The  religious  vows  of  the  Capuchin  nuns  how- 
ever, put  a  final  end  to  all  communication  between  parents  and  children." 
As  he  informs  us  that  his  younger  sister  "shut  herself  up  in  a  convent, 
where  she  was  not  allowed  to  see  her  nearest  relations,"  she  must  have 
become  a  Capuchin  nun.  The  Capuchins  are  one  of  the  regular  orders — 
in  regular  nunneries  no  priest  often  hears  the  confession  of  a  nun  except 
the  regular,  ordinary  confessor.  By  a  regulation  of  the  10th  Chapter, 
Session  xxv,  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  an  extraordinary  confessor  must 
sit  to  hear  them  three  or  four  times  in  the  year.  Mr.  White  had  no  one 
qualification,  save  his  priesthood,  to  make  him  eligible  either  as  ordinary 
or  extraordinary  confessor  of  a  Capuchin  nunnery.  It  was  decided  by 
the  Sacred  Congregation  of  Cardinals  in  the  affairs  of  Bishops  and  Reg- 
ulars, (or  friars)  which  is  the  competent  judicial  tribunal  in  such  cases, 
on  four  several  causes : 

1st.     That  the  nuns  could  not  elect  their  confessor. 

2d.  That  the  Bishop  was  to  appoint  the  confessor  for  the  converts 
subject  to  him. 

3d.  That  the  regular  prelates,  that  is,  friars,  were  to  appoint  con- 
fessors for  the  nuns  of  their  own  order. 

Those  decisions  were  made,  in  a  case  from  Loretto,  on  the  20th  of 
September,  1588 ;  in  a  case  from  Tusculum,  on  the  15th  of  October,  1601 ; 
in  a  case  from  Riga,  on  the  4th  of  September,  1602 ;  and  in  a  case  from 
Valladolid,  on  the  26th  of  October,  in  the  same  year.  Now,  he  assures 
us  himself,  that  he  had  no  intercourse  with  the  cowled  tribes,  and  yet  he 
wishes  us  to  believe  that  the  most  rigid,  and  of  course  to  him,  the  most 
hateful  of  those  tribes  gave  to  him  that  place  to  which  they  always 
appointed  the  most  virtuous  and  respectable  men  of  their  own  order ! ! ! 
I  suspect  this  is  a  sort  bf  reasoning  which  Bishop  Kemp  will  not  under- 
stand, but  to  a  person  conversant  with  the  laws  and  customs  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  Mr.  White's  assertion  will  appear  the  most  absurd 
and  preposterous. 

In  the  second  place  this  man  is  a  secular  priest;  now  by  a  multi- 


256  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


tude  of  canons  and  decisions,  it  has  been  regulated  and  is  an  universal 
custom,  that  the  confessor  of  a  nunnery  of  a  regular  order  generally  is, 
and  ought  to  be,  a  friar  of  the  same  order.  To  this  rule  there  is  but  one 
exception  in  such  a  place  as  Seville,  and  this  exception  could  scarcely 
occur :  viz.  That  the  community  of  nuns  could  not  be  prevailed  upon  to 
confess  to  a  friar  of  their  own  order.  But  this  must  be  for  the  com- 
munity, not  for  an  individual,  as  was  decided  by  the  congregation  in  a 
case  from  Palermo,  May  27,  1623,  and  one  from  Genoa,  27th  April, 
1657.  2 

Mr.  White  tells  us  that  about  the  age  of  twenty-five  he  became  an 
infidel;  for  he  spent  ten  years  in  the  hypocritical  support  of  what  he 
calls  imposture,  before  he  left  Spain  at  the  age  of  thirty-five ;  his  conduct 
did  not  escape  suspicion,  for  he  tells  us,  his  mother  avoided  his  presence 
lest  she  should  hear  what  would  be  against  faith;  both  in  his  Evidence 
and  in  Dohlado's  Letters  he  informs  us  that  profligate  clergymen  were 
his  companions;  but  if  their  conduct  was  not  glaringly  bad,  it  was  at 
least  highly  suspicious;  he  gives  us  abundant  proof  in  his  Doblado'.'^ 
Letters,  volume  2,  page  291,  of  the  Magazine,  that  it  was,  for  he  is  found 
openly  the  companion  of  men  under  censure. 

' '  I  have  visited  Salamanca  after  the  great  defeat  of  the  philosophical 
party,  the  strongest  that  ever  was  formed  in  Spain.  A  man  of  first  rate 
literary  character  amongst  us,  whom  merit  and  court  favor  had  raised 
to  one  of  the  chief  seats  in  the  judicature  of  the  country,  but  whom 
court  caprice  had,  about  this  time,  sent  to  rusticate  at  Salamanca,  was 
doing  me  the  honors  of  the  place,  when  approaching  the  convocation  hall 
of  the  University,  we  perceived  the  members  of  the  faculty  of  divinity 
strolling  about,  previous  to  a  meeting  of  their  body.  A  runaway  slave, 
still  bearing  the  marks  of  the  lash,  at  his  return,  could  not  have  shrunk 
more  instinctively  at  the  sight  of  the  planters  meeting  at  the  council 
room,  than  my  friend  did  at  the  view  of  the  cowls  ''white,  black,  and 
grey,"  which  partially  hid  the  sleek  faces  of  his  offended  masters.  He 
had,  it  is  true,  been  lucky  enough  to  escape  his  imprisonment  and  subse- 
quent penance  in  a  monastery,  which  was  the  sad  lot  of  the  chief  of  his 
routed  party;  but  he  himself  was  still  suspected  and  watched  closely." 

Whether  this  is  the  same  gentlemen  who  held  an  important  place 
in  the  provincial  judicature,  and  who  narrowly  escaped  the  Inquisition ; 
whom  he  mentions  as  an  infidel  companion  in  page  298,  I  cannot  con- 
jecture. But  in  that  page  he  informs  us  that  after  the  acquaintance 
then  formed,  he  "performed  mass  with  a  heart  in  open  rebellion  to  the 
Church  that  enjoined  it :  but  he  had  now  settled  with  himself,  to  offer 


Vid.  Ferrarius,  Bihlioth.  Jurid.,  etc.     Voe.  Moniales. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  257 

it  up  to  his  Creator,  as  he  imagines  that  the  enlightened  Greelcs  and 
Romans  did  their  sacrifices.  He  was  like  them,  forced  to  express  his 
thankfulness  in  an  absurd  language."  The  attempt  which  failed  was 
to  introduce  into  the  Spanish  Universities  the  principles  of  French  infi- 
delity, as  he  himself  informs  us  in  page  291.  The  theses  which  were 
introduced  he  describes  as  "genuine  offspring  of  the  French  school,  the 
very  turn  of  their  phrases  'in  spite  of  the  studied  caution  of  their  lan- 
guage, '  gave  strong  indications  of  a  style  formed  in  defiance  of  the  Holy 
Inquisition."  That  a  man  of  this  description  should  be  selected  con- 
fessor to  a  nunnery,  is  an  absurdity  so  palpable  to  any  divine,  that  I  am 
only  astonished  how  the  man  himself  had  the  hardihood  to  make  the 
assertion.  But  he  knew  who  his  readers  were  likely  to  be ;  persons,  who 
greedily  swallow  every  libel  against  our  Church,  and  neither  know 
whether  its  truth  is  even  possible,  [nor]  perhaps  care  [whether  it  is  or 
not.]  I  am  certain  I  do  not  judge  rashly  when  I  assert  that  amongst 
the  Right  Reverend  and  reverend  approbators  of  the  work  there  are  not 
three,  perhaps  not  one,  who  knows  that  ordinary  approbation  to  hear 
confessions,  does  not  confer  power  to  hear  confessions  in  nunneries; 
that  approbation  to  hear  them  in  one  nunnery  does  not  include  approba- 
tion to  hear  them  in  another,  that  approbation  to  hear  the  confession  of 
one  nun,  for  instance  upon  the  approach  of  death,  does  not  include 
approbation  to  hear  another.  And  that  one  of  the  most  unheard  of 
cases,  though  not  absolutely  impossible,  is  that  a  brother  should  be  the 
confessor  of  a  nun  who  is  his  sister. 

But  suppose  all  those  obstacles  removed,  suppose  those  all  to  have 
been  dispensed  with;  one  other  insuperable  difficulty  remains.  By  the 
common  law  of  the  Church  no  special  age  is  requisite  in  a  priest  to  be 
qualified  generally  to  hear  confessions.  But  the  congregation  before 
mentioned,  decided  on  the  2d  of  May,  1617,  and  on  the  7th  of  June, 
1620,  in  cases  from  the  Patriarchate  of  Venice,  that  the  confessor  of  a 
nunnery  ought  to  be  at  least  over  forty  years  of  age.  In  the  Franciscan 
order,  of  which  the  Capuchins  are  a  branch,  there  is  a  special  statute, 
{Sambuc.  cap.  11,  ?  17,  n.  1,)  of  the  minor  Observantines,  which  requires 
this  age,  and  the  force  of  this  statute  was  decided  to  extend  to  the  re- 
formed of  the  order,  by  a  decree  of  the  congregation  of  the  council,  the 
proper  tribunal  in  this  case,  on  the  26th  of  November,  1689,  upon  a 
question  from  the  Archdioeess  of  Cosenza.  When  the  confessor  goes 
to  the  discharge  of  his  duty  he  is  accompanied  by  another  clergyman, 
who  remains  within  view  though  not  within  hearing,  and  by  a  decision 
of  the  congregation  of  the  affairs  of  Bishops  and  regulars,  on  a  case 
from  Nola,  on  the  21st  of  February,  1617,  it  is  ruled  that  this  com- 


258  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


panion  must  be  over  fifty  years  of  age.  And  on  the  16th  of  March, 
1603,  a  papal  circular  order  was  issued,  chiefly  to  the  Bishops  of  Italy 
and  the  adjacent  islands,  in  which  the  qualifications  which  are  every 
where  required  for  persons  of  this  description,  are  enumerated  in  general 
terms,  aetate  provecti,  pnidentes,  zelantes,  et  vita  exemplari  conspicui: 
"advanced  in  age,  prudent,  zealous,  and  remarkable  for  their  exemplary 

life." 

Let  us  now  review  the  acknowledged,  technical  obstacles,  if  I  may  so 
call  them,  which  rendered  it  impossible ;  legally  and  morally  impossible, 
that  White  could  have  been  a  confessor  to  any  nun ;  except  perhaps  he 
might  [have  been],  though  in  itself  [it  is]  highly  improbable,  to  his 
eldest  sister,  at  her  own  request,  before  her  death :  but,  I  believe  it  will 
now  be  admitted  that  we  have  no  evidence  of  his  ever  having  had  a  sister ; 
because,  his  assertion  is  no  evidence. 

First,  his  conduct  was  by  no  means  such  as  to  be  conspicuous  for 
giving  good  example;  next,  he  had  no  appearance  of  zeal!  again,  even 
as  a  hypocrite,  he  was  imprudent  in  his  company;  fourthly,  he  was  a 
virulent  enemy  to  friars,  who  of  course  would  not  give  him  their  highest 
appointment ;  fifthly,  a  priest  who  lived  as  he  did,  would  no  more  under- 
take such  an  office,  than  he  would  retire  into  a  desert:  again,  a  man  of 
his  principles  would  infallibly  betray  himself,  by  some  expression  for 
which  he  would  be  denounced  to  his  superior;  and  a  seventh  reason, 
which  outweighs  the  whole,  is  that  he  had  not  attained  the  necessary  age 
until  five  years  after  he  had  left  Spain ! ! !  Now  I  would  request  of  his 
compurgators,  our  Baltimore  and  Columbia  canonists,  to  look  back  to  the 
eleven  propositions,  which  this  man  swears  a  solemn  oath  were  true. 
He  called  God  to  witness  their  truth,  and  that  truth  is  legally  and 
morally  impossible ! ! !  And  if  there  is  any  part  of  the  Church  in  which 
that  law  is  most  fully  in  vigor  it  is  in  Spain. 

Was  my  expression  too  strong  when  I  wrote  that  those  men  were 
uninformed  in  volunteering  an  exhibition  of  their  own  ignorance,  from 
their  desire  of  assailing  Popery? 

In  my  next,  I  shall  exhibit  some  more  of  Mr.  White's  veracity,  and 
test  the  value  of  his  unanswerable  argument  against  Popery. 

Yours,  B.  c. 

LETTER  VL 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Oct.  9,  1826. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends — Mr.  White  has  been  adduced  against  us  as  a  witness 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  259 


of  extraordinary  qualifications.  We  have  seen  that  he  had  not  the 
proper  theological  knowledge  to  fit  him  for  being  a  sufficient  judge  of 
doctrine.  We  have  seen  that  he  was  immoral  in  his  conduct,  deceitful 
in  his  youth;  an  early  infidel;  a  confirmed  and  steady  hypocrite:  pre- 
tending to  have  affection  in  order  to  excite  sympathy ;  and  falsely  calling 
God  to  witness  that  he  filled  places,  which  it  was  legally  and  morally 
impossible  for  him  to  hold;  and  the  solemn  secrets  of  which,  if  he  did 
hold  them,  he  had  sacrilegiously  betrayed.  I  now  ask  the  Right  Rev- 
erend Dr.  Kemp,  and  his  associates,  whether  this  is  the  witness  upon 
whose  testimony  they  asked  the  people  of  America  to  condemn  the  great 
Church  of  Christendom,  and  to  despise  its  members  ?  I  ask  whether  the 
testimony  of  this  man  would  be  taken  as  of  value,  in  any  case  of  moment, 
in  any  court?  Whether  his  simple  assertion  is  evidence? — I  shall  be 
told,  that  Mr.  White's  character  is  not  the  true  question.— That  the  true 
question  is  the  character  of  our  Church.  Yes!  But  Mr.  White  is  the 
witness  who  defames  our  Church,  and  the  value  of  the  defamation  de- 
pends upon  the  competency  of  the  witness ;  and  therefore  it  was,  that  I 
delayed  so  long  in  examining  his  competency,  and  took  up  so  much  of 
your  time  in  shewing,  that  as  regarded  knowledge  and  honesty,  he  was 
an  incompetent  witness.  Therefore  whatever  is  supported  only  by  his 
testimony  is  to  be  disregarded.  I  shall  examine  all  his  charges,  sep- 
arating what  rests  only  upon  his  testimony  from  that  which  has  other 
support,  and  thus,  by  this  apparently  useless  examination  of  his  char- 
acter, we  shall  find  our  work  greatly  abridged.  But  I  cannot  consent 
as  yet  to  close  my  inquiry  into  the  history  of  the  gentleman  himself. 
To  use  his  own  words,  I  believe  it  very  useful  since  he  is  one  of  a  class 
which  presents  a  moral  phenomenon  "to  proceed  with  his  moral  dissec- 
tion however  unpleasant  the  task  may  be." 

I  recommence  his  Evidence,  page  20. 

"When  I  examine  the  state  of  my  mind  previous  to  my  rejecting 
the  Christian  faith,  I  cannot  recollect  any  thing  in  it  but  what  was  in 
perfect  accordance  with  the  form  of  religion  in  which  I  was  educated. 
I  revered  the  Scriptures  as  the  word  of  God;  but  was  also  persuaded 
that  without  a  living,  infallible  interpreter,  the  Bible  was  a  dead  letter, 
which  could  not  convey  its  meaning  with  any  certainty.  I  grounded 
therefore  my  Christian  faith  upon  the  infallibility  of  the  Church.  No 
Roman  Catholic  pretends  to  a  better  foundation.  *I  believe  whatever 
the  holy  mother  Church  holds  and  believes,'  is  the  compendious  creed 
of  every  member  of  the  Roman  communion.  Had  my  doubts  affected 
any  particular  doctrine,  I  should  have  clung  to  the  decisions  of  a  Church 
which  claims  exemption  from  error;  but  my  first  doubts  attacked  the 


260  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

very  basis  of  Catholicism.  I  believe  that  the  reasoning  which  shook  my 
faith  is  not  new  in  the  vast  field  of  theological  controversy.  But  I 
protest  that  if  such  be  the  case,  the  coincidence  adds  weight  to  the  argu- 
ment, for  I  am  perfectly  certain  that  it  was  the  spontaneous  suggestion 
of  my  own  mind.  I  thought  within  myself  that  the  certainty  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  faith  had  no  better  ground  than  a  fallacy  of  that  kind 
which  is  called  arguing  in  a  circle;  I  believed  the  infallibility  of  the 
Church,  because  the  Scripture  said  she  was  infallible;  whilst  I  had  no 
better  proof  that  the  Scripture  said  so  than  the  assertion  of  the  Church 
that  she  could  not  mistake  the  Scripture.  In  vain  did  I  endeavor  to 
evade  the  force  of  this  argument ;  indeed  I  still  believe  it  unanswerable. 
Was,  then,  Christianity  nothing  but  a  groundless  fabric,  the  world  sup- 
ported by  an  elephant,  the  elephant  standing  on  a  tortoise?  Such  was 
the  conclusion  to  which  I  was  led  by  a  system  which  impresses  the  mind 
with  the  obscurity  and  insufficiency  of  the  written  word  of  God.  Whj'' 
should  I  consult  the  Scriptures  ?  My  only  choice  was  between  revelation 
explained  by  the  Church  of  Rome  and  no  revelation.  Catholics  who  live 
in  Protestant  countries  may,  in  spite  of  the  direct  tendency  of  their 
system,  practically  perceive  the  unreal  nature  of  this  dilemma.  But 
wherever  the  religion  of  Rome  reigns  absolutely,  there  is  but  one  step 
between  it  and  infidelity." 

Before  I  proceed  further,  allow  me  to  note  the  falsehoods  of  this 
passage. 

No.  1.  Previous  to  his  rejecting  the  Christian  faith,  he  cannot 
recollect  any  thing  in  his  mind  that  was  not  in  perfect  accordance  with 
the  form  of  religion  in  which  he  had  been  educated ! ! ! 

Should  you  not  recollect  his  avowals,  multiplied  and  repeated  dur- 
ing years,  and  deliberately  written  in  direct  contradiction  to  this:  look 
back  to  my  second,  and  third  letters. 

No.  2.  "Had  my  doubts  affected  any  particular  doctrine,  I  should 
have  clung  to  the  decisions  of  a  Church  which  claims  exemption  from 
error,  but  my  first  doubts  attacked  the  very  basis  of  Catholicism." 

That  this  is  a  falsehood  we  have  abundant  evidence.  In  the  first 
place,  in  his  Evidence,  page  30,  he  writes, 

"As  my  rejection  of  revealed  religion  had  been  the  effect,  not  of  a 
direct  objection  to  its  evidences,  but  of  weighing  tenets  against  them 
which  they  were  not  intended  to  support;  the  balance  inclined  in  favor 
of  the  truth  of  the  Gospel,  in  proportion  as  I  struck  out  dogmas,  which 
I  had  been  taught  to  identify  with  the  doctrines  of  Christ." 

In  this  passage  it  is  plain  that  he  asserts  that  as  soon  as  the  particu- 
lar doctrines  to  which  he  objected,  that  is  concerning  whose  truth  h:? 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  261 


had  doubts  at  first,  and  subsequently  unbelief,  were  stricken  out ;  the  old 
evidences  became  strong,  and  he  believed  by  virtue  of  their  force. 

Volume  2,  of  the  Magazine,  page  297,  DoUado's  Fifth  Letter,  he 
shews  that  his  first  doubts,  "against  which  he  wrestled  day  and  night," 
affected  the  particular  doctrine  of  hell. 

No.  3.  The  pretended  arguing  in  a  circle  from  the  infallibility  of 
the  Church  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures,  and  from  the  knowledge 
of  the  Scriptures  to  the  infallibility  of  the  Church,  was  the  absurdity 
the  force  of  which  he  could  not  answer,  and  which  of  course  made  him 
lose  his  faith. 

In  page  296,  of  Dohlado's  Letters  he  gives  as  the  cause  one  far 
more    rational,    and    as    different    from    this    as    may    be    conceived. 
It  is  substantially  this,  "The  Church  is  the  infallible  teacher  of  the 
doctrine  of  truth.     I  must  then  believe  all  that  she  teaches,  or  I  am  an 
infidel.     Let  me  prove  that  there  exists  a  single  flaw  in  the  system,  and 
it  will  all  crumble  to  dust.     Catholic  divines  can  see  no  medium  between 
rejecting  her  infallibility  and  rejecting  revelation,  and  if  she  teaches  as 
faith  one  untrue  doctrine,  she  cannot  be  infallible."     In  page  297,  he 
finds  what  he  will  not  believe,  what  he  looks  upon  to  be  an  absurdity 
taught  by  her  as  a  doctrine  of  faith,  viz.  the  existence  of  hell ;  his  words 
then  are,  that  as  this  is  a  part  of  her  doctrine,  what  can  arguments 
avail  a  doubting  Catholic ?     "His  system  of  faith  in  indivisible.     What- 
ever proves  it  all,  proves  absurdity."     In  page  298,  he  adds  "what- 
ever in  this  state  could  break  the  habit  of  awe,  which  I  was  so  tenaciously 
supporting — whatever  could  urge  me  into  uttering  a  doubt  on  one  of 
the  articles  of  the  Koman  creed,  was  sure  to  make  my  faith  vanish  like 
a  soap  bubble  in  the  air. ' '     After  conversing  with  an  infidel,  ' '  utterance 
transformed  his  doubts  to  demonstrations."     What  were  the  subjects? 
"monks,    ecclesiastical    encroachments,    extravagant    devotion."     "The 
very  hell  I  had  just  denied,  appeared  yawning  before  my  eyes!"     Not 
one  syllable  of  the  vicious   circle.     No, — his   argument   was — "If  the 
Church  is  infallible  all  her  doctrines  must  be  true;  but  her  doctrine  of 
hell  cannot  be  true,  because  it  would  argue  cruelty  in  God :  to  suppose 
him  cruel  is  an  absurdity:  therefore  she  is  not  infallible."     Such,  my 
friends,  was  the  process  which  he  first  described.     Now  he  tells  us,  that 
it  was  the  argument  of  the  vicious  circle :  whether  you  will  believe  him 
in  either  case :  or  if  in  either,  which  is  more  credible,  is  for  yourselves  to 
determine.     Perhaps,   however,   another   passage   of   his   in   page   298, 
DoUado's  Letters,  might  aid  you  to  a  third  cause.     He  is  describing  the 
mode  in  which  he  lost  his  faith;  probably  the  scenes  from  which  his 
very  modest  figure  is  drawn  could  help  you  in  forming  your  opinion. 


262  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


"I  had  been  too  earnest  in  my  devotion,  and  my  Church  too  pressing 
and  demanding.  Like  a  cold  and  interested  mistress,  she  either  exhausts 
the  ardor  of  her  best  lovers,  or  harasses  them  to  distraction.  As  for 
myself,  a  moment's  dalliance  with  her  great  rival  freedom,  converted  my 
former  love  into  perfect  abhorrence." 

I  shall  not  quarrel  with  his  expressions,  nor  ask  how  Catholics  liv- 
ing any  where  can  perceive  that  which  does  not  exist.  I  shall  leave 
the  remark  which  would  suggest  itself,  to  a  more  proper  time,  and  bring 
the  gentleman  to  a  delimma  more  practical  for  our  present  purpose. 

No.  4.  He  says  the  argument  of  the  vicious  circle  was,  he  is  per- 
fectly certain,  the  spontaneous  suggestion  of  his  own  mind. — 

Perhaps  so.— But  it  only  adds  to  the  proof  against  his  patrons, 
because,  if  true,  it  will  necessarily  establish  that  he  never  studied  a 
treatise  on  the  nature  of  the  Church ;  for  there  is  not  one  such  treatise, 
in  which  this  argument  is  not  adduced  against  the  conclusion:  "that  the 
Church  is  infallible. ' '  Well  may  Bishop  Kemp  and  his  associates  blush 
for  the  "high  rank"  which  they  have  so  generously  bestowed  upon  one 
who  by  his  total  neglect  of  theological  studies  was  so  ' '  eminently  quali- 
fied for  the  task  which  he  has  undertaken  and  so  well  fulfilled."  There 
is  not  a  tyro  in  theology  to  whom  it  is  not  familiar— and  my  own  impres- 
sion is  that  Mr.  White  was  intimately  acquainted  with  it  before  he  lost 
his  faith:  not  from  its  having  been  spontaneously  suggested  by  his 
mind ;  but  read  in  his  books. — We  shall  now  see  its  value. 

One  of  the  most  fallacious  modes  of  exhibiting  an  argument  which 
is  founded  upon  the  observation  of  facts,  is  to  change  the  relation  which 
the  facts  have  to  each  other.  Thus,  if  any  effect  flows  from  a  particular 
cause ;  he  must  be  inclined  to  deceive,  instead  of  to  instruct,  who  would 
exhibit  both  cause  and  effect  as  always  co-existing,  because  they  do  co- 
exist after  the  effect  has  been  produced ;  when  in  truth  there  was  a  time 
when  they  did  not  co-exist,  for  the  cause  existed  alone,  before  the  effect 
was  produced.  An  honest,  w^ell  regulated  mind  will  view  them  in  their 
natural  and  historical  order,  and  from  the  succession  of  their  existence 
will  deduce  the  reasoning,  giving  the  value  of  its  priority  to  that  which 
first  existed ;  and  never  forgetting  or  concealing,  that  there  was  such  a 
relation  as  priority  in  one,  and  dependence,  if  I  may  so  call  it,  or  con- 
sequence in  the  other.  He  must  indeed  be  stupid,  who  because  they  have 
co-existed  for  a  long  time,  forgets  that  there  still  is,  and  always  will 
continue,  the  distinction  of  precedence  between  them  to  the  end  of  time. 
And  he  who  knowing  the  fact  of  this  precedence  would  labor  to  conceal 
it,  for  the  purpose  of  confounding  cause  and  effect,  would  be  dishonest. 
This  want  of  intellect  or  want  of  honesty  must  exist  in  every  person  who 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  263 

charges  upon  the  Roman  Catholics  the  fallacy  of  the  vicious  circle :  or 
else  he  must  fall  into  another  mistake  equally  unfortunate. 

There  is  scarcely  a  moral  or  religious  truth  which  has  not  two  sorts 
of  arguments  in  its  favor;  one  which  is  strong,  cogent,  and  sufficient, 
and  may  be  called  properly  and  exclusively  its  proof;  the  other,  not  so 
clear,  full  or  satisfactory,  and  which  rather  tends  to  confirm  that  which 
has  received  previous  proof,  than  to  be  the  motive  for  its  credibility. 
When  both  those  modes  are  had  recourse  to,  for  maintaining  a  propo- 
sition, it  must  argue  no  great  share  of  love  for  truth  in  those  who  know 
the  fact,  to  speak  and  to  write  as  if  the  latter  mode  only  had  been  used. 
Yet  such  is  the  conduct  of  those  who  knowing  our  doctrine  charge  upon 
us  the  fallacy  of  the  vicious  circle. 

Again,  the  connexion  between  the  premises  and  the  conclusion  of 
a  sound  argument,  is  so  complete  and  perfect,  that  although  the  truth 
of  the  former  should  be  apparent,  still  when  by  their  means  the  truth 
of  the  conclusion  becomes  evident,  though  in  reality  the  certainty  of  their 
truth  is  not  increased,  still  the  satisfaction  of  contemplating  it  is  en- 
hanced, and  the  mind  becomes  more  gratified  from  the  exhibition.  This 
additional  pleasure  is,  by  several,  mistaken  for  a  new  proof  of  the 
premises  themselves.  Thus,  though  I  should  know  a  man  to  be  wise  and 
good  and  generous,  I  feel  additional  pleasure  from  contemplating  the 
new  exhibitions  of  his  wisdom  and  his  goodness  and  his  generosity ;  my 
gratification,  but  not  my  conviction,  is  increased.  Should  I  from  a 
Church,  which  I  know  to  be  infallible,  receive  books,  of  whose  inspira- 
tion I  could  have  no  knowledge,  but  for  her  testimony;  should  I  find 
in  those  books  themselves,  additional  exhibitions  of  what  I  already  knew, 
viz.  her  infallibility ;  my  former  knowledge  is  not  derived  from  this  late 
discovery,  though  I  feel  my  pleasure  thereby  augmented.  And  although 
I  cannot  fairly  use  this  late  and  gratifying  discovery  to  prove  my  origi- 
nal premises,  it  will  not  be  the  error  of  a  vicious  circle  to  apply  it  as  a 
confirmation  of  that  for  which  I  had  already  convincing  evidence. 

It  not  unfrequently  happens  regarding  the  proof  and  value  of  writ- 
ten documents,  that  their  authenticity  can  be  proved  only  by  the  author- 
ity of  a  tribunal ;  the  authority  of  which  tribunal  was  evident  without 
the  documents,  and  before  they  existed;  but  when  by  the  authority  o£ 
the  tribunal  their  value  was  established,  the  documents  themselves  were 
found  to  contain  new  proof  of  the  authority  of  the  tribunal.  Yet  to 
use  this  new  proof  in  addition  to  that  which  was  old  and  sufficient,  and 
which  existed  before  the  documents  were  written,  would  not  be  arguing 
in  a  circle ;  because  though  admitting  their  value,  their  testimony  would 
prove  the  power  of  the  tribunal :  still  it  was  not  by  them  it  was  originally 


264  CONTROVEKSY  Vol. 


proved.  Thus  if  a  stranger  has  the  public  testimony  that  the  persons 
who  preside  in  one  of  our  courts  are  the  supreme  judges  of  the  state, 
this  testimony  is  evidence  for  him  of  their  authority. 

Having  this  knowledge  of  their  power,  he  observes  their  proceed- 
ings; he  beholds  them  not  only  declare  that  certain  books  have  legal 
authority,  but  he  finds  that  they  interpret  certain  passages  of  those 
books,  as  being  good  testimony  in  favor  of  their  exercise  of  power ;  they 
never  refer  to  the  commission  by  virtue  of  which  they  sit,  but  they  refer 
to  the  book,  which  their  decision  explains.  Surely,  no  person  would, 
say  that  this  court  was  guilty  of  a  vicious  circle,  by  claiming  their  power 
of  decision  from  the  book,  and  by  their  decision  making  the  book  to  be 
authority.  For  it  is  obvious  that  their  power  of  decision  existed  and 
was  generally  known,  without  the  book:  and  the  general  tenor  of  the 
book  might  be  known  before  their  decision,  and  might  be  valuable  before 
the  decision;  yet  it  was  by  the  decision  of  what  was  the  exact  import 
of  the  passages,  the  application  became  precisely  fixed. 

It  now  rests  with  me  to  show  that  it  is  not  from  the  Scriptures 
that  Roman  Catholics  learn  the  infallibility  of  their  Church,  though 
it  is  from  that  Church  they  do  learn  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures. 
And,  indeed,  my  friends,  after  deep  and  serious  investigation,  I  hesitate 
not  to  avow,  with  one  whom  I  should  not  name  in  the  same  line  with 
myself,  the  great  St.  Augustine,  Bishop  of  Hippo,  "I  would  not  believe 
the  Gospel,  were  I  not  induced  thereto  by  the  authority  of  the  Church."-'* 

In  order  to  view  the  case  fairly,  and  without  prejudice,  we  must  go 
to  its  origin,  in  the  mode  of  creating  the  ecclesiastical  tribunal,  and  of 
getting  from  that  tribunal  the  testimony  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. AVe  must  then  take  the  facts  in  their  historical  order.  We,  in 
such  a  case,  have  no  Scriptures  of  either  old  or  new  law  recognized  as 
being  inspired,  and  we  go  back  to  Judea  at  the  time  previous  to  the 
death  of  our  Saviour.  I  know  from  history  what  I  now  assert.  I  know 
the  facts,  also,  from  documents  and  monuments  of  the  highest  character. 
The  observant  person  would,  at  that  time,  have  witnessed  a  vast  number 
of  miracles  performed  by  the  Saviour;  from  the  evidence  of  the  mir- 
acles, the  truth  of  his  doctrine,  and  his  power  to  grant  a  commission, 
and  to  state  what  the  extent  of  that  commission  should  be,  must  result. 
He  does  teach  doctrine,  and  gives  his  commission  to  some  of  his  fol- 
lowers. He  is  put  to  death ;  he  arises ;  this  resurrection  is  proclaimed : 
miracles  prove  its  truth.  He  sends  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  those  whom 
he  commissions,  they  prove  and  confirm  this  fact  by  miracles.     Their 


^Ego  vero  Evangelio  non  crederem,  nisi  me  Catholicae   Ecclesiae   commoveret 
auctoritas.     Lib.  contra  Ep.  Manich,  chap,  v,  6.     Migne,  vol.  viii,  col.  17. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  265 

commission  is  now  evidently  established,  and  they  may  be  easily  known. 
The  commission  is  extended,  and  is  to  be  still  more  extended  and  per- 
petuated, and  the  miraculous  confirmation  accompanies  its  extension  and 
its  continuance.  No  fact  was  ever  more  evident  to  any  community,  than 
was  the  commission  of  the  early  teachers  to  those  who  beheld  them. 
That  they  were  commissioned,  amongst  other  things,  to  teach  the  doctrine 
of  Christ  to  all  men,  and  to  provide  for  its  continuance  to  the  end  of 
the  world,  and  for  its  extension  to  every  place,  became  also  matter  of 
evident  notoriety.  It  was  equally  evident  to  the  persons  who  lived  with 
them,  that  one  of  the  principal  objects  of  Christ  was,  to  preserve  for  all 
times  that  truth  which  he  came  from  heaven  to  preach;  and  that  the 
mode  in  which  he  provided  for  its  preservation,  was  by  establishing  a 
tribunal  from  which  it  was  to  be  learned ;  and  that  they  who  learned  the 
doctrine,  obtained  their  knowledge,  not  by  philosophical  disquisition, 
not  by  perusing  documents  which  as  yet  had  not  been  written,  not  by 
taking  the  opinions  of  what  men  though  reasonable,  or  liberal,  or  becom- 
ing, or  convenient,  but  simply  by  receiving  from  the  commissioned  body 
of  teachers,  the  testimony  of  what  was  originally  taught — and  by  resting 
upon  their  authority  for  its  truth.  It  is  plain,  they  could  have  had 
no  other  way  of  learning  what  Christ  had  taught.  Did  any  one  of  those 
teachers  differ  from  another  in  his  testimony,  the  general  body  was  con- 
sulted. History  leaves  not  a  shadow  of  doubt  as  to  the  fact ;  and  reason 
exhibits  the  correctness  of  the  mode ;  and  the  evidence  derived  from  the 
general  testimony  of  the  body,  led  to  the  correction  of  the  mistake  of  the 
individual.  Those  first  Christians  also  knew,  that  the  solemn  injunction 
which  had  been  given  by  Christ  was,  to  receive  unhesitatingly  the  tes- 
timony of  the  body  of  the  Apostles  and  their  associates;  and  that,  in 
doing  so,  the  people  received  the  testimony  of  Christ  himself.  The 
miracles  wrought  by  those  persons  confirmed  the  belief  of  those  princi- 
ples, and  they  themselves  inculcated  it  as  derived  from  Christ.  It  is 
a  plain  fact  of  history,  that,  when  the  members  of  this  tribunal  gave 
a  doctrinal  decision,  they  gave  it  in  full  accordance  with  this  principle : 
for  they  declared  that  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Spirit  of  truth,  who  descended 
upon  the  first  teachers,  and  was  communicated  by  them  to  their  asso« 
ciates,  joined  in  their  assembly,  presided  over  their  meeting,  and  spoke 
in  their  decision.  It  is  matter  of  historical  evidence,  that  all  those  who 
refused  to  receive  and  to  submit  to  such  decision,  were  considered  as 
opposed  to  revealed  truth,  and  disobedient  to  the  command  of  the  Sav- 
iour, because  they  did  not  hear  those  whom  he  sent  as  their  teachers, 
Thus,  before  the  Scriptures  were  known  to  the  Christians,  they  knew  the 
Church ;  and  they  recognized  its  infallible  authority  in  teaching  the  doc- 


266  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


trine  which  had  been  revealed,  and  of  which  it  was  made  the  witness  and 
the  depository.  Thus,  it  was  not  by  the  Scriptures  the  first  Christians 
proved  the  infallibility  of  the  Church;  but  they  proved  it  before  the 
Scriptures  existed,  by  the  plain  fact,  that  he  who  had  proved  his  author- 
ity by  miracles,  had  used  authority  in  giving  the  power  of  teaching 
his  doctrine,  with  infallible  certainty  of  correctness,  to  this  tribunal, 
which  he  created  for  that  purpose.  It  is  admitted  by  all  persons,  that 
the  teaching  of  truth  was  one  of  the  principal  objects  of  commissioning 
the  Apostles  and  their  successors.  It  would  be  indeed  beneath  the  wis- 
dom and  power  of  the  Godhead  to  send  teachers,  evidently  commissioned 
by  heaven,  to  whom  men  respecting  that  commission  ought  to  listen; 
and  still,  that  this  body  commissioned  by  heaven  were  equally  liable 
as  any  other  body  to  teach  error  instead  of  truth!!!  Of  what  value, 
then,  would  be  their  divine  commission  ?  If  they  led  men  to  error,  how- 
were  men  to  find  those  who  would  bring  them  back  to  truth?  Even 
Mr.  White  himself  admits  the  soundness  of  this  Catholic  principle. 
Dohlado's  Letters,  page  296,  volume  ii,  number  five: 

"I  have  often  heard  the  question,  how  could  such  men  as  Bossuet 
and  Fenelon  adhere  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  reject  the  Protestant 
faith?  The  answer  appears  to  be  obvious.  Because,  according  to  their 
undoubted  principles  on  this  matter,  they  must  have  been  either  Catho- 
lics or  infidels.  Laying  it  down  that  Christianity  was  chiefly  intended 
to  reveal  a  system  of  doctrine  necessary  for  salvation,  they  naturallxj  and 
consistently  inferred  the  existence  of  an  authorized  judge  upon  ques- 
tions of  faith;  otherwise  the  inevitable  doubts  arising  from  private 
judgment  would  defeat  the  object  of  revelation.  Thus  it  is  that  Bos- 
suet thought  he  had  triumphantly  confuted  the  Protestants,  by  merely 
showing  that  they  could  not  agree  in  their  articles.  Like  Bossuet,  most 
Catholic  divines  (Mr.  White  might  have  written  all)  can  see  no  medium 
between  denying  the  infallible  authority  of  the  Church  and  rejecting 
revelation. 

"No  proposition  in  Euclid  could  convey  a  stronger  conviction  to  my 
mind  than  I  found  in  this  dilemma.  Let  me  but  prove,  said  I  to  myself, 
that  there  exists  a  single  flaw  in  the  system,  and  it  will  all  crumble 
into  dust,"  and  so  forth. 

Thus,  if  Mr.  White  believed  that  a  principal  object  of  our  Saviour 
was  to  reveal  to  the  world  a  system  of  doctrine,  the  belief  of  which  would 
be  necessary  for  salvation,  naturally  and  consistently,  he  must  infer  from 
this,  the  infallibility  of  the  Church.  From  j\Ir.  White's  denial  of  this 
infallibility,  we  must  naturally  and  consistently  infer,  that  Mr.  White 
does  not  believe  a  principal  object  of  the  Saviour  was  to  make  a  belief 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  267 

of  his  doctrines  necessary  for  salvation.  What  says  Bishop  Kemp  now 
to  Mr.  White's  principles  of  faith?  If  it  be  a  matter  of  indifference, 
so  far  as  regards  salvation,  what  system  of  doctrine  man  is  to  believe, 
why  did  those  good  gentlemen  separate  from  the  Catholic  Church? 
Why  not  come  back  to  us  now?  Why  use  such  pains  to  correct  our 
* '  errors  of  Popery  ? ' '  Why  collect  so  much  money  to  convert  Heathens  ? 
Why  keep  separate  Churches  from  each  other?  Why  will  not  the 
Bishop,  and  the  Presbyterian,  and  the  Methodist,  meet  together,  and 
proclaim  to  their  people  that  it  matters  not,  so  far  as  concerns  salvation, 
to  which  flock  they  are  attached  ?  Why  not  proclaim  to  them  that  they 
might  as  well  be  Roman  Catholics?  I  promise  you,  my  friends,  Mr. 
White  will  turn  the  tables  upon  those  who  brought  him  forward  to 
annoy  us. 

Then,  it  is  plain,  that  the  first  Christians  believed  that  a  principal 
object  of  their  divine  teacher  was  to  reveal  a  system  of  doctrine,  which 
was  so  necessary  to  salvation,  that  he  commanded  them  to  lay  down  their 
lives  sooner  than  desert  it ;  and  all  its  teachers  gave  them,  not  only  such 
injunctions,  but  confirmed  the  injunctions  by  their  example.  They 
shed  their  blood  sooner  than  deny  one  article  of  faith!  Mr.  White 
might  have  left  his  Indian  story  of  the  world  resting  upon  the  elephant, 
and  the  elephant  upon  the  tortoise,  for  some  more  appropriate  subject; 
because,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  no  exemplification  of  a  vicious  circle, 
and  next,  the  first  Christians  believed  naturally  and  consistently  from 
the  nature  of  their  doctrine,  as  Mr.  White  shows,  that  the  Church  was 
infallible;  and  I  have  shown  that  history  will  prove  it  to  have  bee  a 
necessarily  one  of  the  first  principles  which  they  received,  years  before 
any  of  the  evangelists  began  to  write  his  gospel.  And  when  the  Church 
was  deluged  with  several  foolish,  spurious,  ridiculous,  and  blasphemous 
productions,  purporting  to  be  inspired  Scriptures,  the  distinction  between 
what  was  really  inspired,  and  what  was  not,  could  never  have  been 
drawn  with  certainty,  unless  by  a  tribunal  whose  decisions  must  be 
infallibly  correct:  because,  if  it  were  possible  for  the  tribunal  which 
made  the  selection  of  what  was  inspired,  from  the  mass,  to  err,  we  may 
without  absurdity  or  irreligion  suppose  that  it  really  did  err,  in  giving 
to  us  this  one  book.  Without  an  infallible  guide,  how  shall  we  now 
know  how  to  discern  this  from  amongst  the  others  ?  What  then  becomes 
of  the  certainty  of  faith?  How  shall  we  now  know  the  books  of  God 
from  the  production  of  a  fanatic?  A  Roman  Catholic  knows,  without 
the  Scripture,  that  the  Church  must  be  and  is  infallible,  in  giving  to  him 
the  doctrines  which  God  revealed,  and  amongst  these,  the  mighty  portion 
of  that  doctrine  which  the  sacred  volume  contains.     His  knowledge  of 


268  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

the  infallibility  of  his  Church,  and  of  the  inspiration  of  the  sacred  vol- 
ume now  co-exist,  and  have  for  ages  co-existed;  he  has  by  traditionary 
documents,  by  authentic  records,  by  standing  monuments,  by  a  thousand 
proofs  which  his  Church  has  always  preserved  and  exhibited,  obtained 
the  knowledge  of  both  together;  but,  formerly,  at  its  proper  time,  one 
did  precede  the  other;  the  Church  existed  before  the  New  Testament, 
as  the  Jewish  Church  existed  before  the  Old  Testament.  We  received 
them  all  together :  the  Christian  Church  brought  the  Old  Testament  from 
the  Jewish  Church;  she  testified  the  New  when  it  appeared;  she  kept 
both  from  corruption;  and  at  this  day,  I  stand  as  much  in  need  of  her 
testimony,  to  assure  me  that  the  book  which  I  receive  is  unchanged,  as 
my  predecessors  did,  to  know  that  the  book  given  to  them  was  inspired. 
Deprive  me  of  the  testimony  of  the  Church,  and  how  shall  I  discern  if 
the  book  which  I  read  is  the  production  of  an  inspired  writer,  or  of  a 
fanatic?  Though  I  should  know  that  the  evangelists  were  inspired, 
how  shall  I  know  that  what  I  read  is  their  production  ?  Deprive  me  of 
the  witness  given  to  the  world  before  the  book  existed,  and  which  testi- 
fied the  nature  of  the  book  to  my  predecessors,  and  which  was  commis- 
sioned as  the  witness  of  all  ages,  and  I  shall  be  now,  as  they  would  have 
been,  without  the  testimony.  This  is  no  vicious  circle,  nor  will  it  become 
one,  though  the  book  thus  proved  should  contain  testimonies  in  confirma- 
tion and  in  support  of  what  was  believed  upon  sufficient  proof  before  the 
book  itself  was  proved  or  even  written. 

You  must  also,  my  friends,  observe  what  an  egregious  contradictiou 
there  is,  between  the  several  accounts  which  this  unfortunate  man  gives 
of  the  process  which  led  to  his  infidelity.  I  have  frequently  examined 
those  who  fabricated ;  but  such  a  constant  and  yet  varying  adherence  to 
falsehood,  I  do  not  think  ever  struck  me  in  any  other  as  in  Mr.  White. 

As  Bishop  Kemp  has  kindly  undertaken  the  patronage  of  this  charge 
of  the  vicious  circle,  I  think  he  ought  now,  in  common  justice,  to  give  to 
the  world  his  mode  of  ascertaining,  how  any  portion  of  the  Scripture  is 
the  result  of  inspiration.  I  will  point  out  but  one  chapter,  and  if  he  will 
prove  its  inspiration,  or  even  its  authenticity,  without  having  recourse 
to  the  infallibility  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  I  shall  give  him  more 
credit  than  I  am  at  present  inclined  to  bestow.  Let  him  signify  his  in- 
tention, and  I  shall  point  out  the  chapter,  in  the  Bible  which  he  receives ; 
and  I  am  much  mistaken  if  I  shall  not  in  that  event  be  able  to  afford  to 
my  fellow-citizens,  a  good  specimen  of  the  world,  the  elephant  and  the 
tortoise,  exemplified. 

My  friends,  I  shall  continue  my  examination. 

Yours,  B.  c. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  269 


LETTER  VIL 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Oct.  16,  1826. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends — We  have  seen  ]\Ir.  White's  account  of  his  loss  of  the 
Catholic  faith.  He  next  presents  us  with  a  history  of  his  conversion  to 
the  Protestantism  of  the  Church  of  England.  When  he  arrived  in  that 
country  in  the  year  1810,  he  was  thirty-five  years  of  age. 

He  informs  us  that  he  expected  to  find  no  piety  or  religion  in 
England,  and  pays  the  English  people  a  compliment  by  stating  that  as 
they  were  enlightened,  and  as  the  French  philosophers  led  him  to  believe, 
that  in  the  ratio  of  his  information,  man  was  irreligious,  therefore  Eng- 
land must  be  very  irreligious.  But  providentially,  he  in  London  met  a 
good  and  pious  friend,  and  he  afterwards  found  many  excellent  men  of 
the  same  description.  He  found  the  protection  of  British  liberty  and  was 
ashamed  of  being  thought  a  Roman  Catholic.  By  the  bye,  if  he  [had 
been]  a  Roman  Catholic,  he  would  in  England  have  felt  the  benefit  of 
penal  infliction,  and  he  was  very  wise  as  he  had  no  religion,  not  to  subject 
himself  to  persecution,  by  continuing  to  be  a  hypocrite.  The  soreness 
arising  from  the  endurance  of  his  ten  years'  subjection  to  scrutiny  began 
to  heal.  Professing  himself  an  infidel,  he  was  received  with  mildness 
and  toleration.  There  is  nothing  strange  in  this.  The  law  of  England 
does  not  punish  a  man  for  being  an  infidel;  it  punishes  him  seriously, 
pnly  for  being  a  Catholic.  Thus  it  is  not  against  the  conscience  of  an 
atheist  to  swear  that  he  does  not  believe  in  transubstantiation,  it  is  not 
against  the  conscience  of  a  pagan  to  swear  that  no  foreign  prelate  hath 
or  ought  to  have  any  ecclesiastical  or  spiritual  authority  within  the  realm 
of  England.  It  does  not  injure  the  conscience  of  any  person  but  of  a 
Catholic  to  swear  all  or  any  of  their  oaths.  White  might  indeed  say  they 
were  mild  and  tolerant  to  him,  infidel  as  he  was,  but  neither  Sir  Thomas 
More,  nor  the  present  Duke  of  Norfolk  could  say  the  same  of  themselves. 
But  of  course  Mr.  White  calls  cherishing  himself,  toleration,  and  he  calls 
the  political  incarceration  of  the  noble  duke,  because  he  will  not  become 
a  member  of  some  one  of  the  new  religions,  or  an  infidel,  toleration ! — 
Mr.  White  found  then  for  the  first  time  he  says  ' '  that  a  Christian  is  not 
necessarily  a  bigot."  I  have  yet  to  learn  that  this  writer  knows  either 
what  a  Christian  or  a  bigot  is.  I  shall  give  my  own  statement  of  what 
they  are.  A  Christian  is  a  person  who  steadily  and  upon  principle  be- 
lieves all  the  doctrines  which  Christ  has  taught  and  adheres  to  the  insti- 
tutions of  Christ.  However  vague  the  meaning  which  is  usually  given 
to  the  phrase  may  be,  its  true  meaning  is  precise  and  definite :  that  man 


270  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

who  has  not  a  fixed  principle  of  belief,  who  doubts  to-day,  what  he  be- 
lieved yesterday,  and  who  knows  not,  and  cares  not  to  know,  what  God 
has  taught  and  established  in  the  Christian  law,  is  not  a  Chi-istian,  in 
the  proper  meaning  of  the  word.  What  would  be  thought  of  me,  were  I 
to  assert  that  a  man  was  a  good  American  citizen,  who  neither  knew  nor 
cared  for  what  were  the  principles  of  our  constitution  or  our  rules  of 
law,  and  would  as  soon  take  them  from  the  explanation  of  an  inhabitant 
of  Hayti  as  from  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  ?  Revealed  religioa 
consists  in  that  collection  of  doctrine  and  law  which  God  has  made 
known:  the  Christian  religion  is  that  body  of  doctrine  and  that  code  of 
law  which  Christ  has  given.  What  Christ  gave  was  not  contradiction; 
but  coherent  truth,  consistent  in  all  its  parts ;  and  it  is  unchangeable,  for 
if  it  be  changed  it  ceases  to  be  what  it  was  before  the  alteration ;  it  ceases 
then  to  be  the  institution  of  Christ,  it  becomes  something  different  from 
Christianity.  A  Christian  firmly  adheres  to  what  Christ  has  taught  and 
established,  he  avoids  changes;  he  cannot  call  error  truth,  nor  change 
the  old  institutions.  Thus  a  Christian  firmly  and  reasonably  adheres  to 
truth ;  and  refuses  to  call  recent  changes  the  original  institution.  Bigot- 
ry is  unreasonable  and  obstinate  adherence  to  a  religious  opinion,  com- 
bined with  a  hatred  of  those  who  are  opposed  thereto.  The  Christian 
does  not  adhere  to  opinion,  for  it  is  not  upon  his  own  opinion  he  rests, 
but  he  receives  the  testimony  of  that  Church  to  which  Christ  originally 
gave  his  doctrine,  that  what  she  now  teaches  is  what  she  originally  re- 
ceived: he  believes  the  doctrine  upon  her  testimony,  not  upon  his  own 
private  opinion.  That  she  is  an  infallibly  correct  and  competent  witness, 
we  shall  afterwards  see :  thus  his  adherence  to  doctrine  is  not  unreason- 
able, for  it  is  holding  to  public  known  truth,  not  to  private  opinion,  and 
his  steady  adherence  to  it  is  not  obstinate  attachment.  He  has  no  hatred 
against  those  who  err,  he  is  full  of  charity  and  of  affection  for  them,  and 
if  he  informs  them  of  their  error,  it  is  not  for  the  purpose  of  woundin;:^ 
their  feelings  but  of  enlightening  their  minds,  and  inducing  them  to  serve 
God,  that  they  may  be  happy.  The  bigot  is  known  by  his  rancor,  by  his 
obstinacy,  by  his  personal  vindictive  disposition,  by  his  vague  rhapsody ; 
the  Christian  is  known  by  his  steady  calm  adherence  to  doctrine,  by  his 
plain  declaration,  by  his  firm  expostulation,  by  his  precise,  definite  enun- 
ciation of  what  he  knows  to  be  true.  If  Mr.  White  had  written  truly, 
he  would  not  have  asserted  that  he  had  to  journey  from  Seville  to  Lon- 
don, and  to  wait  during  upwards  of  thirty  years  until  he  met  with  a 
pious  Protestant,  to  find  "that  a  Christian  is  not  necessarily  a  bigot." 
My  friends,  I  have  the  happiness  to  rank  amongst  my  acquaintance 
some  of  the  most  intelligent  and  enlightened  Protestants  in  both  hem- 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  271 

ispheres.  I  have  been  in  close  intimacy  with  Catholics  of  almost  every 
grade.  I  assert  as  the  result  of  my  close  and  continued  observation, 
that  if  Mr.  White's  assertion  is  meant  to  convey  the  idea,  that  there  is 
amongst  Catholics  less  true  charity,  less  kind  feeling,  less  of  correct 
liberality  for  those  separated  from  their  communion,  than  there  exists 
amongst  any  division  of  Protestants  for  Catholics :  a  more  untenable  and 
baseless  position  was  never  taken.  Before  I  close  this  series,  we  shall 
have  full  opportunity  to  prove  it.  At  present,  I  shall  advert  but  to  one 
fact.  Has  any  body  of  the  Catholic  clergy  of  the  United  States  ever 
been  guilty  of  solemnly  recommending  to  their  flocks  the  libels  of  any 
Protestant  clergyman,  who  joined  the  church,  as  the  best  mode  of  learn- 
ing the  tenets  and  character  of  the  Protestant  people  ?  Has  any  one  of 
the  respectable  clergymen,  who  have  joined  our  Church,  made  an  atro- 
cious attack  upon  those  whose  communion  he  had  left?  Yet  we  have 
many  such  amongst  us.  This  at  least  is  a  sort  of  bigotry  which  does 
not  belong  to  our  Christianity.  No  one  of  our  Bishops  has  made  hinself 
as  notoriously  conspicious  as  Bishop  Kemp.  When  we  assail  their  system, 
it  is  not  by  such  a  work  as  no  modest  woman  should  read,  such  a  work 
as  no  man  of  fine  feelings  of  gentlemanly  principle  could  recommend,  if 
he  had  read  it,  as  I  hope  and  trust  the  Right  Reverend  and  Reverend 
approbators  did  not. 

But  to  return :  White,  having  met  this  mild  and  tolerant  Christian, 
began  to  perceive  that  he  might  again  become  a  believer,  provided  be 
saw  religion  divested  of  all  force  but  that  of  persuasion:  Will  you  be- 
lieve it?  He  would  tell  us  that  this  was  the  case  in  England!  !  !  In 
England,  whose  disgraceful  code  of  persecution,  according  to  Edmund 
Burke,^  was  more  barbarously  afflictive  than  was  that  of  Nero  or  of  Dio- 
clesian !  In  England,  which  by  her  persecution  on  the  score  of  religion, 
has  thrice  depopulated  Ireland !  In  England,  whose  bloody  scourge  has 
lacerated  more  Christian  flesh  than  did  all  the  Pagan  persecutors.  In 
England,  whose  myrmidons  long  desolated  Scotland,  and  followed  her 
hardy  sons  into  their  most  remote  fastnesses,  to  massacre  them  for  their 
dissent  from  her  liturgy,  and  their  dislike  of  her  surplice !  In  England, 
whose  bench  of  Bishops  still  rivets  the  chains  of  millions  who  refuse  to 
desert  the  religion  of  their  fathers,  and  those,  the  men  who  bled  at  Sal- 
amanaca,  at  Orthes,  at  Vimiera,  at  Talavera,  upon  the  Pyrennes,  before 
Toulouse,  at  Waterloo;  and  whom  her  spirit  of  aggression  led  to  the 
slaughter-pen  of  New  Orleans !  In  England,  which  by  the  blasphemous 
oath  of  the  craven  of  Dunkirk  and  of  the  Helder,  keeps  shorn  of  the 


Vid.  Tracts  relative  to  the  Laws  against  Popery  in  Ireland,  passim. 


272  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

mighty  meed  of  their  large  honors,  the  descendants  of  the  peers,  who  with 
the  Catholic  princes  of  Catholic  England  swept  the  fields  of  Cressy,  of 
Poiotiers,  and  of  Agincourt ;  the  descendants  of  the  men  who  claimed  at 
Runnymede  the  restitution  of  their  rights,  at  a  period  when  he  who  base- 
ly gave  to  his  profligate  concubine  the  patronage  of  the  English  army, 
and  of  a  portion  of  its  Church,  would  be  at  a  loss  to  discover  the  stem 
or  root  of  his  German  ancestry.  Yes,  in  that  England,  within  the  walls 
of  whose  Parliament  the  ungrateful  Duke  of  Wellington,  but  the  other 
day  declared,  that  it  was  by  the  sword  the  Protestant  religion  was  planted 
in  Ireland,  and  that  by  the  sword  alone  it  should  be  maintained ;  and  to 
keep  it  in  which  wretched  country,  an  army  of  every  species  of  oppressive 
hirelings  is  employed!  Yet, — In  that  England,  this  man  tells  us  that 
he  saw  religion  divested  of  all  force  but  persuasion !  How  is  it  that  even 
by  accident  he  will  not  write  some  truth? 

He  next  read  Paley's  Natural  Theology,  and  was  struck  by  the 
author's  peculiar  manner  and  style:  he  was  much  interested.  Did  Mr. 
White  study  his  treatise  Of  God,  in  metaphysics;  On  Religion,  in  ethics; 
On  Natural  Religion,  in  theology ;  every  one  of  which  was  in  his  course 
of  studies  at  Seville,  he  would  have  found  nothing  new  in  Paley,  except 
his  English  and  his  false  assertions.  But  the  gentleman  quarreled  with 
his  professor  of  philosophy  and  could  not  attend  to  the  "dull  divinity" 
lectures.  Perhaps  the  arguments  he  found  were,  to  him,  new.  But  who 
will  believe  him  when  he  says  that  he  now  felt  pious  toward  the  great 
author  of  nature?  Natural  Theology  establishes  no  revelation.  White 
tells  us  that  he  only  from  being  a  Catholic,  became  a  hypocrite — an  infidel 
of  the  French  school,  I  presume,  not  an  atheist ;  though  really  it  is  im- 
possible to  say  what  the  grade  of  French  infidelity  is.  I  have  met  it  of 
every  size  and  shade  and  appearance,  and  after  much  reflection  have 
concluded,  that  neither  can  the  infidel  himself  or  any  other  person  tell 
what  he  believes ;  but  like  the  man  who  began  to  take  a  catalogue  of  the 
goods  which  he  had  not ;  there  is  no  knowing  where  or  when  you  would 
be  likely  to  conclude,  if  you  began  to  write  down  what  he  did  not  believe : 
I  have  known  one  of  them  go  so  far  as  to  assure  me  that  he  did  not  be- 
lieve in  his  own  existence,  because  he  would  cease  to  be  a  Pyrrhonist  if 
he  could  be  certain  of  his  existence ;  yet  I  know  not  how  he  escaped  the 
difficulty,  by  the  absurdity;  for  he  was  certain,  that  he  did  not  exist. 
Unless  Mr.  White  went  as  far  as  this  good  humored,  facetious  and  ac- 
commodating nonenity  of  a  gentleman,  he  must  have  been  certain  of 
his  own  existence,  and  of  that  of  the  universe;  and  he  need  not  then 
be  in  doubt  of  the  existence  of  God,  until  he  struck  his  foot  against  a 
watch,  or  read  the  Archdeacon's  book. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  273 

In  this  state  of  mind  lie  went  into  a  Protestant  Church,  and  was 
greatly  aft'ected  by  the  solemnity,  and  the  music  and  hymn.  For  years 
before  he  had  not  entered  a  Church  without  feelings  of  hostility,  though 
he  was  to  officiate,  and  of  irritation,  though  he  was  to  get  money  for 
submitting  to  what  he  calls  tyranny.  Yet  in  this  very  passage,  Mr. 
White  tells  us  that  he  did  not  believe  what  was  contained  in  the  prayers, 
and  still  *' there  was  nothing  that  could  check  s;^Tnpathy  or  smother  the 
reviving  sentiments  of  natural  religion  which  Paley  had  awakened.'' 
For  my  part,  I  can  have  no  sympathy  with  a  person  who  prays  for  what 
I  do  not  believe  to  be  correct, — Mr.  White's  doctrine  of  sympathy  is 
not  intelligible  to  me.  If  his  sentiments  of  natural  religion  were  only 
awakened  by  Paley,  how  could  he  in  the  day  of  his  infidelity  have  offered 
his  sacrifices  as  Plato  and  Socrates  did,  who  had  natural  religion  ?  Thus 
we  must  believe  that  he  possessed,  and  did  not  possess  natural  religion, 
at  the  same  time;  whilst  he  was  a  Deist  he  was  an  Atheist.  I  suspect 
after  all  the  Pyrrhonism  of  my  French  friend  will  answer  equally  well 
for  my  regenerated  Spaniard.  Now  the  solemn  and  affecting  prayers 
which  pleased  him  so  much  are  nothing  more  or  less  than  translations 
from  those  which  he  tells  us  in  another  place  disgusted  him ;  but  perhaps 
they  sounded  better  in  English  than  in  Latin. — No  question  about  tastes. 
— The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  has  very  wisely  contented  itself 
with  our  good  old  Popish  prayers,  most  of  which  have  seventeen  centuries 
of  age,  and  several  almost  eighteen  centuries.  Mr.  White  was  by  the  law 
of  his  Church  bound,  and  is  still,  if  he  lives,  bound  to  recite  daily  those 
prayers  and  psalms  in  Latin,  but  this  was  troublesome.  Doblado's  Let- 
ters Number  5,  page  297. 

"An  unmeaning  and  extremely  burthensome  practice  laid  by  the 
Church  of  Rome  upon  her  clergy,  contributed  not  a  little  to  increase  the 
irksomeness  of  my  circumstances.  A  Catholic  Clergyman,  who  employs 
his  whole  day  in  the  discharge  of  his  duty  to  others,  must  yet  repeat  to 
himself  the  service  of  the  day  in  an  audible  voice — a  performance  which 
neither  constant  practice,  nor  the  most  rapid  utterance,  can  bring  within 
the  compas,  of  less  than  a  hour  and  a  half  in  the  four  and  twenty.  This 
exhausting  exercise  is  enjoined  under  pain  of  mortal  sin,  and  the  resti- 
tution of  that  day 's  income  on  which  any  portion  of  the  office  is  omitted. ' ' 

What  a  difference  the  same  prayer  may  exhibit  to  him  in  an  English 
dress,  I  know  not.  But  Mr.  White  ought  to  know  that  in  the  present 
Church  of  England  the  clergy  were  originally  bound  in  the  same  way  to 
the  Common  Prayer  which  is  but  an  abridged  translation  of  the  Breviary, 
but  like  Mr.  White  they  thought  it  unmeaning  and  extremely  burthen- 
some  to  spend  so  much  time  in  prayer,  and  a  contrary  custom  has  made 


274  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

the  law  fall  into  disuse.  Being  now  impressed,  he  never  passed  a  day 
"without  some  ardent  aspirations  toward  the  author  of  his  life  and  exist- 
ence." But  lest  this  should  not  have  a  sufficiency  of  effect,  we  of  course 
are  not  left  without  "eyes  streaming  with  tears."  Yet  the  conversion 
was  not  complete. 

I  shall  here  give  the  passage  by  which  the  English  Protestant  clergy 
were  bound  to  read  the  Office  daily,  to. shew  Mr.  White's  friends  that 
originally  the  Church  which  that  gentleman  joined  required,  if  not  an 
hour  and  a  half,  at  least  upwards  of  half  an  hour  in  the  twenty-four  to 
be  spent  in  reciting  prayers.  In  the  first  preface  to  the  Liturgy  of  Queen 
Elizabeth  was  the  following  passage : 

"And  all  the  priests  and  deacons  are  bound  to  say  daily  the  Morning 
and  Evening  Prayer,  either  privately  or  openly,  except  they  be  let  by 
preaching,  studying  divinity,  or  some  other  urgent  cause." 

To  which  the  Scotch  Liturgy  added : 

"Of  which  cause,  if  it  be  frequently  pretended,  they  are  to  make 
the  Bishop  of  the  diocess,  or  the  Archbishop  of  the  province,  the  judge 
and  allower. ' ' 

To  show  that  this  was  not  public  reading  in  the  Church,  the  next 
sentence  provides  specially  for  that  object : 

"And  the  curate  that  minstereth  in  every  parish  church  or  chapel, 
being  at  home,  and  not  being  otherwise  reasonably  letted,  shall  say  the 
same  in  the  parish  church  or  chapel  where  he  ministereth,  and  shall  toll 
a  bell  thereto,  a  convenient  time  before  he  begin,  that  such  as  may  be 
disposed  may  come  and  hear  God's  word  and  pray  with  him." 

But  what  altogether  removes  any  doubt  upon  the  subject,  is  the  tes- 
timony of  Hammond  L 'Estrange  upon  the  subject;  in  his  Alliance  of  the 
Divine  Offices,  printed  in  London  in  1699,  third  folio  edition,  page  27, 
letter  S. ;  commenting  upon  the  above  passage,  he  has  the  following : 

"The  act  preceding  (respecting  the  liturgy,  5  and  6  Edward  VI), 
telling  us  so  expressly  that  open  prayer  is  such  as  is  made  in  a  cathedral, 
church,  chapel,  or  oratory,  in  a  consecrated  place,  we  need  no  (Edipus 
to  unriddle  the  import  of  private,  or  to  doubt  that  it  signifieth  any  thing 
other  that  such  as  is  performed  at  home.  But,  why  is  the  minister  bound 
to  say  it  daily  either  in  publiek  or  at  home?  Some  think  our  Church  had 
under  consideration  how  ignorant  and  illiterate  many  vicars  were,  and 
ordered  thus,  that  they  might  con  in  private,  the  better  to  enable  them 
for  the  publiek.  But  I  am  of  another  perswasion :  for  first,  the  Church 
I  conceive  would  not  as  she  doth  enjoin  them  to  officiate  in  publiek,  did 
she  not  suppose  them  already  in  some  tollerable  degree  fitted  for  the  ser- 
vise.     Again,  the  words  are  general,  not  definitely  such  and  such  of  those 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO   WHITE  275 


mean  abilities,  but  all  ministers  without  exception.  Now,  though  very 
many  were,  yet  it  is  no  cheritable  judgment  to  believe  them  all  dunces; 
and  it  is  apparent,  that  where  such  ignorance  fell  under  the  consideration 
of  authority,  the  phrase  doth  vary,  with  a  particular  application  to  them 
alone  who  were  guilty  of  it;  so  it  is  in  the  Queen's  injunctions  {EUz. 
Injunct.  35)  such;  (such  only,  not  all)  as  are,  but  mean  readers,  shall 
peruse  over  before,  once  or  twice  the  Chapters  and  other  Homilies, 
to  the  intent,  that  they  may  read  to  the  better  understanding  of  the 
people,  and  the  more  encouragement  of  godliness.  So  that  I  rather  think 
the  Churche  's  policy  was  the  better  to  inure  and  habituate  clergy  to  re- 
ligious duties, ' '  and  so  forth. 

From  this,  it  is  plain,  that  originally  the  Church  of  England,  which 
only  omitted  some  portions  of  our  breviary,  and  translated  the  retained 
part  into  English,  enjoined  its  daily  recital  to  her  clergy,  as  a  good  and 
sanctifying  religious  practice.  I  believe,  like  Mr.  White,  they  considered 
it  to  be  an  unmeaning  and  extremely  burthensome  practise,  and  have  long 
since  permitted  this  and  many  similar  regulations  to  fall  into  disuse. 
My  object  is  to  show  that  the  prayers  were  no  novelty  to  the  gentleman, 
if  he  had  been  in  the  habit  of  reading  his  breviary ;  but  I  ought  to  have 
recollected  what  he  had  written  in  DoUado's  Letters,  page  299:  "The 
breviary,  in  its  black  binding,  clasps,  and  gilt  leaves,  is  kept  upon  the 
table  to  check  the  doubts  of  any  chance  intruder ; ' '  and  in  all  probability 
this  was  the  only  use  which  had  been  made  of  it  during  several  years ;  so 
that,  perhaps,  the  prayers  were  new  to  the  gentleman,  and  what  he  could 
have  known  in  the  Catholic  Church  was  forgotten. 

I  shall  conclude  this  letter,  by  giving  you  a  tolerable  large  extract 
from  Mr.  White's  Evidence,  so  as  in  his  own  words  to  lay  before  you 
the  whole  process  of  his  conversion  from  infidelity  to  the  English  Protest- 
ant Church: 

"This  was  all  the  change  that  for  a  year  or  more  took  place,  in  my 
religious  notions.  Obliged  to  support  myself  chiefly  by  my  pen,  and 
anxious  at  the  same  time  to  acquire  some  branches  of  learning,  which 
Spanish  education  neglects,  my  days  and  nights  were  employed  in  study ; 
yet  religion  had  daily  some  share  of  my  attention.  I  learned  that  the 
author  of  the  Natural  Theology  had  also  written  a  work  on  the  Evidences 
of  Christianity,  and  curiosity  led  me  to  read  it.  His  argument  appeared 
to  me  very  strong ;  but  I  found  an  intrinsic  incredibility  in  the  facts  of 
revealed  history,  which  no  general  evidence  seemed  able  to  remove.  I 
was  indeed  laboring  under  what  I  believe  to  be  a  very  common  error 
in  this  matter — an  error  which  I  have  not  been  able  completely  to  correct, 
without  a  very  long  study  of  the  subject  myself.     I  expected  that  general 


276  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

evidence  would  remove  the  natural  inverisimilitude  of  miraculous  events; 
that,  being  convinced  by  unanswerable  arguments  that  Christ  and  his 
Apostles  could  be  neither  impostors  nor  enthusiasts,  and  that  the  narra- 
tive of  their  ministry  is  genuine  and  true,  the  imagination  would  not 
shrink  from  forms  of  things  so  dissimilar  to  its  own  representations  of 
real  objects,  and  so  conformable  in  appearance  with  the  tricks  of  jugglers 
and  impostors.  Now,  the  fact  is,  that  probable  and  likely,  though  used 
as  synonymous  in  common  language,  are  perfectly  distinct  in  philosophy. 
The  probable  is  that  for  the  reality  of  which  we  can  allege  some  reason : 
the  likely,  that  which  bears  in  its  face  a  semblance  or  analogy  to  what 
is  classed  in  our  minds  under  the  predicament  of  existence.  This  asso- 
ciation is  made  early  in  life  among  Christians,  in  favor  of  the  miraculous 
events  recorded  in  the  Holy  Scriptures ;  and  if  not  broken  by  infidelity 
in  after-life,  the  study  of  the  Gospel  evidence  gives  those  events  a  char- 
acter of  reality,  which  leaves  the  mind  satisfied  and  at  rest;  because  it 
finds  the  history  of  revealed  religion  not  only  probable  but  likely.  It  is 
much  otherwise  with  a  man  who  rejects  the  Gospel  for  a  considerable 
period,  and  accustoms  his  mind  to  rank  the  supernatural  works  recorded 
by  revelation,  with  falsehood  and  imposture.  Liklihood,  in  this  case, 
becomes  the  strongest  ground  of  belief;  and  probability,  though  it  may 
convince  the  understanding,  has  but  little  influence  over  the  imagina- 
tion. 

"A  sceptic  who  yields  to  the  powerful  proofs  of  revelation,  will, 
for  a  long  time,  experience  a  most  painful  discordance  between  his  judg- 
ment and  the  associations  which  unbelief  has  produced.  When  most 
earnest  in  the  contemplation  of  Christian  truth,  when  endeavoring  to 
bring  home  its  comforts  to  the  heart,  the  imagination  will  suddenly  re- 
volt, and  cast  the  whole,  at  a  sweep,  among  the  rejected  notions.  This 
is,  indeed,  a  natural  consequence  of  infidelity,  which  mere  reasoning  is 
not  able  to  remove.  Nothing  but  humble  prayer  can,  indeed,  obtain 
that  faith  which,  when  reason  and  sound  judbment  have  led  us  to  super- 
natural truth,  gives  to  unseen  things  the  body  and  substance  of  reality. 
But  of  this  I  shall  have  occasion  to  speak  again. 

"The  degree  of  conviction  produced  by  Paley's  Evidences  was,  how- 
ever, sufficiently  powerful  to  make  me  pray  daily  for  divine  assistance. 
This  was  done  in  a  very  simple  manner.  Every  morning  I  repeated  the 
Lord's  prayer  seriously  and  attentively,  offering  up  to  ray  Maker  a  sin- 
cere desire  of  the  knowledge  of  him.  This  practice  I  continued  three 
years.  My  persuasion,  that  Christianity  was  not  one  and  the  same 
thing  with  the  Roman  Catholic  religion,  growing  stronger  all  the  while. 
As  my  rejection  of  revealed  religion  had  been  the  effect,  not  of  direct 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  277 


objection  to  its  evidences,  but  of  weighing  tenets  against  them,  which 
they  were  not  intended  to  support ;  the  balance  inclined  in  favor  of  the 
truth  of  the  Gospel,  in  proportion  as  I  struck  out  dogmas,  which  I  had 
been  taught  to  identify  with  the  doctrines  of  Christ.  The  day  arrived,  at 
length,  M'hen,  convinced  of  the  substantial  truth  of  Christianity,  no  ques- 
tion remained  before  me,  but  that  of  choosing  the  form  under  which  I 
was  to  profess  it.  The  deliberation  which  preceded  this  choice,  was  one 
of  no  great  difficulty  to  me.  The  points  of  difference  between  the 
Churches  of  England  and  Rome,  though  important,  are  comparatively 
few ;  they  were,  besides,  the  very  points  which  had  produced  my  unbelief. 
That  the  doctrines  common  to  both  Churches  were  found  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, my  early  studies  and  professional  knowledge  left  me  no  room  to 
doubt ;  and,  as  the  evidence  of  revelation  had  brought  me  to  acknowledge 
the  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  I  could  find  no  objection  to  the  resump- 
tion of  tenets  which  had  so  long  possessed  my  belief.  The  communion 
in  which  I  was  inclined  to  procure  admission  was  not,  indeed,  that  in 
which  I  was  educated ;  but  I  had  so  long  wandered  away  from  the  Roman 
fold,  that,  when  approaching  the  Church  of  England,  both  the  absence 
of  what  had  driven  me  from  Catholicism,  and  the  existence  of  all  the 
other  parts  of  that  system  made  me  feel  as  if  I  were  returning  to  the 
repaired  home  of  my  youth. 

"Upon  receiving  the  sacrament  for  the  first  time,  according  to  the 
form  of  the  English  Church,  my  early  feelings  of  devotion  revived ;  yet 
by  no  means,  as  it  might  be  feared  in  a  common  case,  with  some  secret 
leaning  to  what  I  had  left;  for  Catholicism  was  thoroughly  blended 
with  my  bitterest  recollections.  It  was  a  devotion  more  calm  and  more 
rational;  if  not  quite  strong  in  faith,  yet  decided  as  to  practice.  The 
religious  act  I  performed,  I  considered  as  a  most  solemn  engagement  to 
obey  the  laws  of  the  Gospel;  and  I  thank  God  that,  since  that  period, 
whatever  clouds  have  obscured  my  religious  views,  no  deliberate  breach 
of  the  sacred  law,  has  increased  the  sting  of  remorse,  which  the  unbeliev- 
ing part  of  my  life  left  in  my  breast. 

''The  renovated  influence  of  religion,  cherished  by  meditation  and 
study,  induced  me,  after  a  period  of  a  year  and  a  half,  to  resume  my 
priestly  character ;  a  step  without  which  I  thought  I  had  not  completed 
the  re-acknowledgment  I  owed  to  the  truth  of  Christianity.  If  any  one, 
unacquainted  with  my  circumstances,  should  be  inclined  to  suspect  my 
motives,  he  may  easily  ascertain  his  mistake,  by  inquiring  into  the  uni- 
form tenor  of  my  conduct  since,  in  1814,  I  subscribed  the  articles  of  the 
Church  of  England." 


278  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

I  must  reserve  my  comments  upon  this  passage  to  my  next  letter,  and 
remain 

Yours,  respectfully, 

B.  c. 

LETTER  VIII. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Oct.  23.  1826. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends — I  now  come  to  consider  the  process  by  which  Mr.  White 
asserts  he  became  a  member  of  the  Church  of  England.  He  attributes 
his  conversion,  in  the  first  place,  to  the  study  of  Paley's  Evidences  of 
Christianity.  But  he  informs  us,  that  no  reasoning  can  remove  infidel- 
ity, page  29,  that  "nothing  but  a  humble  prayer  can  obtain  that  faith 
which  when  reason  and  sound  judgment  have  led  us  to  supernatural 
truth  gives  to  things  unseen  the  body  and  substance  of  reality. ' '  Con- 
cerning this,  to  use  his  o^vn  phrase,  we  shall  have  more  hereafter. 

Archdeacon  Paley  sets  out  with  a  plain  proposition :  That  it  is  only 
by  miracles  a  revelation  can  be  made.  "Preparatory  Considerations," 
paragraph  3.  "Now  in  what  way  can  a  revelation  be  made  by  miracles? 
In  none  which  we  are  able  to  conceive."  If  Mr.  White  was  then  con- 
verted to  Christianity  by  Archdeacon  Paley's  Evidences,  he  must  have 
been  convinced  of  the  truth  of  the  miracles  by  which  the  divine  mission 
of  the  Apostles  was  attested:  and  indeed,  the  Archdeacon  has  put  the 
proof  strongly.  But  if  Mr.  White  had  been  in  the  least  degree  conver- 
sant with  the  history  or  theology  of  his  former  Church,  which  is  ours, 
he  must  have  plainly  seen  that  in  the  two  chapters  of  the  archdeacon's 
proofs  of  his  second  proposition  part  I,  he  was  guilty  of  a  great  number 
of  palpably  false  statements ;  and  it  was  only  by  supposing  the  truth  of 
those  statements,  he  was  able  to  prevent  the  full  force  of  his  Evidences 
in  support  of  Christianity,  from  becoming  proofs  of  the  exclusive  truth 
of  Catholicism.  Here  Mr.  White  must  have  been  either  very  ignorant 
of  what  he  ought  to  know;  or  it  is  perfectly  impossible  that  he  could, 
through  Doctor  Paley's  Evidences,  have  become  a  Christian  without  be- 
coming a  Roman  Catholic.  I  do  not  think  his  ignorance  is  so  great  as 
this  would  require,  and  therefore  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  to  this  moment 
Mr.  White  is  not  a  believer  in  the  truth  of  the  Christian  religion. 

Doctor  Paley  having  in  his  first  proposition  established  the  fact, 
that  miracles  were  wrought  to  attest  the  commission  of  the  teachers  of 
Christianity,  and  having  in  his  preparatory  considerations,  admitted  the 
principle,  that  it  is  only  by  miracles  we  can  obtain  a  revelation :  it  fol- 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  279 

lowed  as  a  matter  of  course,  that  the  first  teachers  were  commissioned  to 
tell  mankind  what  those  revealed  doctrines  were.  It  also  inevitably 
followed  that  wherever  a  miracle  was  proved  to  exist,  the  consequence 
would  be  the  same.  Thus  the  great  difficulty  which  Paley  had  to  en- 
counter presented  itself  in  the  fact  that  the  doctrines  of  Popery  as  ho 
was  pleased  to  call  them,  were  supported  by  the  very  same  evidence  by 
which  he  established  the  truth  of  Christianity.  And  until  he  could  get 
rid  of  this  difficulty,  Popery  and  Christianity  must  stand  or  fall  together. 
From  the  earliest  days  of  the  Church,  and  through  every  age,  Koman 
Catholics  have  constantly  adduced  this  proof.  We  shall  exhibit  in  our 
Church,  miracles;  the  author  of  our  religion  has  declared  that  miracles 
would  continue  amongst  the  believers  in  his  revelation,  therefore  either 
the  whole  system  of  Christianity  is  a  delusion;  or  we  are  the  true  be- 
lievers. 

The  archdeacon  takes  the  most  compendious  mode  of  evading  the 
difficulty;  for  he  never  alludes  to  the  declaration,  and  he  boldly  denies 
truth  of  the  fact.  Now  if  Mr.  White  had  paid  the  least  attention  to  his 
theological  studies,  he  must  have  seen  that  the  facts  which  archdeacon 
Paley  denied  were  in  several  instances  true,  and  that  those  whose  truth 
might  be  denied  had  no  influence  or  bearing  on  the  question  at  issue. 
I  shall  exhibit  to  you  those  parts  of  Paley 's  dissertation  to  which  I  al- 
lude. 

Part  I,  prop,  ii,  section  1 :  he  states  that  he  may  omit  as  unworthy 
of  examination  so  far  as  regards  proof  of  doctrine  ''such  accounts  of 
supernatural  events  as  are  found  only  in  histories  by  some  ages  posterior 
to  the  transaction,  and  of  which  it  is  evident  the  historian  could  know 
little  more  than  his  reader."  With  this  principle  I  fully  concur. 
Amongst  the  exemplifications,  he  classes  "a  great  part  of  the  legendary 
history  of  Popish  saints,  the  very  best  attested  of  which  is  extracted  from 
the  certificates  that  are  exhibited  during  the  process  of  their  canonization, 
a  ceremony  which  seldom  takes  place  till  a  century  after  their  deaths. 
This  is  properly  divisible  into  two  parts,  1st,  his  general  proposition :  ' '  a 
great  part  of  the  legendary  history  of  Popish  saints, ' '  has  been  written 
long  after  they  died:  and  2d,  "the  best  attested  miracles  of  those  saints 
are  extracted  from  certificates  exhibited  at  their  canonization,  which  sel- 
dom takes  place  till  after  the  lapse  of  a  century."  Suppose  I  were  to 
grant  the  truth  of  his  first  proposition  its  extent  is  only  to  a  great  part 
but  not  to  the  whole  of  his  legendary  history.  Now  if  even  any  part  of 
the  history  of  miracles  is  true,  it  is  true  that  miracles  have  been  wrought 
in  the  Popish  Church,  and  therefore  Popery  stands  upon  the  same 
grounds  as  far  as  regards  miracles,  as  does  Christianity  itself.    The  arch- 


280  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


deacon's  argument  will  be  perfectly  valueless  if  he  admits  even  one  sub- 
stantial miracle  for  Popery ;  because,  if  one  miracle  can  be  wrought  in 
support  of  error,  a  miracle  ceases  to  be  an  infallible  test  of  truth;  if  a 
miracle  be  not  an  infallible  evidence  of  truth,  we  have  no  certainty  o£ 
the  Christian  doctrine  being  a  divine  revelation:  the  archdeacon  dared 
not  to  assert  openly  that  no  one  of  the  miracles  wrought  in  the  Popish 
Church  was  evident:  but  he  used  that  stratagem,  which  must  be  the 
refuge  of  a  bad  cause;  by  equivocal  and  vague  propositions,  he  en- 
deavored to  approximate  insensibly  to  his  menacing  position. 

His  next  assertion  is  an  exhibition  of  disingenuity.     He  does  not 
state  an  open  falsehood,  but  he  artfully  constructs  his  sentence,  so  as  to 
convey  to  the  reader  an  untruth  which  he  does  not  plainly  write.    A  cur- 
sory view  of  his  sentence  would  lead  his  reader  to  believe  that  the  first 
time  the  certificate  of  the  truth  of  miracles  was  submitted  to  public  and 
solemn  investigation,  was  not  until  a  century  after  the  alleged  occur- 
rence: that  such  an  assertion  was  necessary  to  render  his  argument  of 
any  avail  is  plain,  when  we  look  to  the  principle,  which  asserts  that  proof 
to  be  insufficient  which  is  only  adduced  ages  posterior  to  the  transaction. 
Now  the  archdeacon  knew,  and  if  Mr.  White  did  not  know  he  ought  to 
have  known,  that  the  substantiated  and  sworn  and  sifted  history  was 
contained  in  the  certificate  drawn  up  at  the  time  of  the  occurrence,  al- 
though it  was  only  produced  at  the  process  which  preceded  the  canoniza- 
tion.   If  the  certificate  was  the  official  attestation  of  the  result  of  a  public 
and  strict  inquiry,  at  the  time  and  on  the  spot,  where  the  transaction  oc- 
curred, it  became  a  history,  whose  true  date  was  the  period  of  its  forma- 
tion, not  that  of  its  production.     As  well  might  Doctor  Paley  be  told 
"Sir,  you  ask  me  to  believe  the  truth  of  a  miraculous  occurrence  which 
you  say  took  place  eighteen  centuries  ago,  you  produce  a  book  which  con- 
tains the  account :  why  did  you  not  ask  me  to  examine  it  in  Judea  at  the 
time  of  its  occurrence  ? ' '    The  doctor  would  answer,  that  the  transactions 
testified  were  examined  by  competent  witnesses  at  the  time,  and  place, 
and  that  these  books  were  the  certificates  which  contained  the  result  of 
the  examination.    Such  is  my  answer  to  the  doctor.    By  your  looking  to 
his  phraseology,  you  will  find  he  does  not  state  that  the  certificate  was 
framed  during  the  process  of  canonization,  but  was  exhibited  at  that 
time.    Now  the  doctor 's  principle  cannot  bear  upon  the  fact,  if  the  certifi- 
cate was  *  *  cotemporary  history, ' '  for  he  distinguishes  the  proofs  ' '  which 
are  found  only  in  history  by  some  ages  posterior  to  the  transaction, ' '  and 
which  he  deems  insufficient,  with  what  he  calls  sufficient,  and  what  sup- 
ported Christianity:  this  he  describes    [in  the  sentence]    "ours  is  co- 
temporary  history."    If  then  the  certificates  which  are  exhibited  be  co- 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  281 

temporary  history,  Doctor  Paley's  reasoning  is  bad,  and  he  is  disingen- 
uous.   But  the  certificates  are  ' '  cotemporary  history, "  as  I  have  shewn. 

A  plain  principle  of  common  sense  and  of  common  law  is,  that  no 
person  can  testify  any  thing  but  what  he  has  observed:  a  hearsay  wit- 
ness can  only  testify  that  an  assertion  has  been  made,  but  as  several  false 
assertions  are  made,  our  knowledge  of  the  assertion  is  not  knowledge  of 
its  truth.  Thus  a  certificate  of  hear-say  is  no  evidence :  nor  is  a  certificate 
of  a  fact  evidence  of  the  fact,  unless  in  the  same  manner  that  history 
would  be  evidence  thereof.  It  will  be  necessary  to  digress  a  little,  by  way 
of  historical  inquiry,  in  order  to  shew  the  value  of  Dr.  Paley's  assertion. 

Koman  Catholics  believe  that  it  is  now  equally  in  the  power  of  God 
to  work  a  miracle  as  it  was  at  any  former  period,  and  if  there  exists  evi- 
dence of  a  miracle  having  been  performed  at  any  time,  it  ought  to  be  be- 
lieved :  the  archdeacon  himself  will  not  object  to  this  principle.  Roman 
Catholics  have  regulated  that  the  proper  judges  officially  to  examine  and 
to  decide  upon  the  truth  of  the  fact,  and  of  its  nature,  are  the  Bishops, 
and  those  men  of  prudence  and  piety  and  science  whom  they  may  call 
upon.  When  miracles  were  said  to  have  occurred,  the  Bishops,  so  aided, 
examined  upon  the  spot,  publicly,  and  proclaimed  their  judgment.  The 
proofs  required  for  the  pious  belief  of  any  person's  being  a  saint  after 
death,  were  extraordinary  sanctity  of  life,  and  repeated  miracles  per- 
formed, especially  by  occasion  of  the  person,  at  or  about  or  even  after 
death.  The  Bishops  after  diligent  inquiry  upon  the  spot,  at  the  time, 
frequently  found  those  proofs,  and  publicly  proclaimed  their  belief  and 
judgment.  It  was  complained  of,  that  sometimes  this  examination  was 
not  as  rigorous  as  it  ought  to  have  been,  and  precautions  were  taken  to 
guard  against  partiality  and  precipitancy.  By  an  ordinance  of  the 
Council  of  Trent,  passed  in  the  25th  session,  on  the  3d  of  December, 
1563,  the  Bishops  were  directed  to  have  as  their  council  in  the  examina- 
tion of  alleged  miracles,  learned  theologians,  and  other  proper  persons; 
and  when  they  [have]  made  diligent  inquisition  by  sworn  witnesses, 
upon  the  spot :  and  those  witnesses  separately  examined,  and  their  depo- 
sitions separately  drawn  up:  and  all  hear-say  excluded;  no  deposition 
being  allowed  to  contain  any  but  direct  testimony  of  what  fell  under  the 
senses  of  the  witness :  and  proper  persons  skilled  in  the  natural  philos- 
ophy having  been  consulted :  if,  upon  a  review  of  the  whole  case  delib- 
erately made,  the  Bishop  should  be  satisfied  of  the  truth  of  the  facts  and 
of  their  miraculous  nature,  he  transmits  a  certified  copy  of  the  process 
and  depositions  to  the  Holy  See  for  more  full  examination.  In  Rome, 
it  is  laid  before  the  Congregation  of  Cardinals  specially  appointed  for 
such  examination,  having  attached  to  them  one  or  more  lawyers  and  phy- 


282  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

sicians,  whose  duty  it  is  by  the  closest  scrutiny  to  try  whether  there  be 
any  defect  in  the  evidence  as  to  the  fact,  or  whether,  the  facts  being 
admitted,  their  truth  will  admit  of  any  explanation  that  will  destroy 
their  miraculous  character.  Should  they  pass  this  ordeal,  the  depositions 
are  sealed  up,  and  kept  together  with  the  certificates  of  the  two  tribunals, 
and  at  the  end  of  fifty  or  of  one  hundred  years,  they  are  opened  and  laid, 
together  with  any  additional  evidence  which  might  have  been  procured, 
for  or  against  the  facts,  and  examined  with  equal  scrutiny  by  a  tribunal 
of  persons  who  without  the  heat  of  enthusiasm,  the  partiality  of  a 
former  expression  of  opinion,  or  any  other  undue  motive  to  sway  them, 
now  calmly  review  the  two  former  examinations,  hearing  all  the  argu- 
ments of  ingenious  counsel  against  the  facts,  and  having  for  their  light 
the  aid  of  any  progress  which  might  in  the  interval  have  been  made  in 
science,  and  they  pronounce  before  God,  as  they  will  answer  to  him,  a 
solemn  final  judgment  upon  the  case.  It  is  true  then,  as  Doctor  Paley 
wrote  that  "the  very  best  attested  of  our  Popish  miracles  are  extracted 
from  the  certificates  that  are  exhibited  during  the  process  of  the  canoni- 
zation of  our  saints,  a  ceremony  which  seldom  takes  place  till  a  century 
after  their  deaths,"  but  it  is  not  true  as  he  insinuates,  that  those  certifi- 
cates are  not  "cotemporary  history;"  they  are  eotemporary  history  of 
the  best  kind.  Thus  the  doctor  taught  falsehoods  whilst  he  wrote  dis- 
guised truth,  and  in  the  support  of  his  second  proposition  of  his  first 
part,  he  has  all  through  exhibited  the  most  ingenious  ability  in  the  per- 
version of  truth,  to  avoid  a  formidable  difficulty. 

I  shall  now  examine  a  few  of  the  special  examples  brought  by  Doctor 
Paley  to  illustrate  his  principle.  He  says  the  principle  ' '  applies  also  with 
considerable  force  to  some  of  the  miracles  of  the  third  century."  To 
make  his  argument  conclusive,  he  ought  to  have  written  all  the  miracles, 
for  if  any  one  of  them  is  proved,  the  proof  of  that  one  will  suffice :  thus 
his  disproving  twenty  would  not  destroy  our  position,  provided  we  should 
succeed  in  proving  the  truth  of  even  one,  for  we  could  argue  thus,  upon 
the  doctor's  own  principle.  The  working  of  a  miracle  is  evidence  of 
God's  commission  for  the  revelation  or  the  confirmation  of  truth.  But 
here  is  the  plain  proof  that  a  miracle  has  been  w^rought.  Therefore,  here 
is  plain  proof  of  God's  testimony,  for  revelation  or  confirmation.  Thus, 
although  the  proof  of  several  might  be  defective,  the  proof  of  one  will  be 
sufficient.  The  archdeacon  proceeds:  "especially  to  one  extraordinary 
instance,  the  account  of  Gregory,  Bishop  of  Neoc£esarea,  called  Thauma- 
turgus,  delivered  in  the  writings  of  Gregory  of  Nyssen,  who  lived  one 
hundred  and  thirty  years  after  the  subject  of  his  panegyric." 

Now  I  would  merely  remark,  that  if  the  question  w'as,  whether  upon 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO    WHITE  283 

the  evidence  which  we  now  possess,  of  the  miracles  wrought  by  the 
Bishop  of  Neocaesarea,  taken  in  a  sole  and  isolated  way,  we  were  called 
upon  to  determine  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  the  doctrines  of  our  Church, 
perhaps  that  proof  would  not  be  fully  sufficient.  But  such  is  not  the 
case :  we  do  not  claim  that  our  doctrines  are  true  because  they  are  sup- 
ported by  the  testimony  of  God  manifested  only  in  the  miracles  of  this 
holy  man  and  of  others  having  no  better  proof.  We  will  give  them  up, 
and  also  those  of  hundreds  of  others,  and  still  we  will  have  hundreds 
not  liable  to  this  objection,  nor  to  any  other  objection  of  any  weight: 
and  upon  those  we  will  found  one  of  our  arguments,  that  if  miracles 
prove  the  truth  of  Christianity,  they  also  prove  the  truth  of  our  Church. 
But  it  will  not  be  the  loss  of  time  to  examine  the  archdeacon's  as- 
sertions somewhat  more  closely. — 1st.  St.  Gregory  of  Neocsesarea  died  in 
271 ;  Gregory  of  Nyssa  was  chosen  Bishop  of  his  see  in  372,  after  having 
assisted  his  brother,  St.  Basil,  who  was  Archbishop  of  Caesarea ;  Basil  was 
born  in  the  year  329,  between  Basil  and  Gregory  was  a  brother  named 
Naucratius ;  probably  Gregory  was  not  less  than  forty  years  of  age  when 
he  was  chosen  bishop;  thus  between  the  death  of  one  Gregory  and  the 
birth  of  the  other,  there  did  not  intervene  half  the  period  of  one  hundred 
and  thirty  years.  The  latter  Gregory  was  born  in  Cffisarea  of  Cappa- 
docia,  between  which  place  and  Neocaesarea  in  Pontus  there  was  no  extra- 
ordinary distance :  and  his  father 's  family  were  living  in  Pontus :  Nyssa, 
not  Nyssen,  of  which  he  was  bishop,  was  in  Cappadocia;  thus  between 
the  time  and  place  of  the  residence  of  Thaumaturgus  and  his  panegyrist, 
there  was  no  extraordinary  distance.  Gregory  Thaumaturgus  was  no 
obscure  personage.  His  parents  were  eminent  for  their  rank  and  for- 
tune in  the  city  of  Neocassarea ;  they  were  not  Christians ;  their  daughter 
being  married  to  the  assistant  governor  of  Caesarea  in  Palestine,  Gregory 
and  his  brother  Athenodorus,  went  to  stay  with  her  for  a  time ;  they  at- 
tended a  famous  school  of  Roman  law  in  the  neighborhood  of  Berytus, 
and  were  subsequently  disciples  of  the  famous  Origen,  during  his  so- 
journ in  Cfesarea ;  Gregory  also  studied  Platonic  philosophy  and  physics 
at  Alexandria  in  Egypt,  and  upon  his  return  to  Pontus,  he  not  only  was 
a  Christian,  but  eminent  for  piety.  Phedimus,  archbishop  of  Amasea 
and  metropolitan  of  Pontus,  prevailed  upon  him  to  undertake  the  epis- 
copal charge  of  his  native  city,  in  which  there  were  only,  as  we  are  in- 
formed, seventeen  believers.  A  vast  number  of  miracles  are  said  to 
have  been  wrought  by  him:  and  the  public  statements  were,  that  their 
evidence  was  so  great,  that  it  was  the  principal  cause  of  the  conversion 
of  the  whole  city  and  its  vicinity.  The  fact  of  the  conversion  is  not  con- 
tested, nor  is  it  contested,  that  the  public  testimony  was,  that  the  con- 


284  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

version  was  the  consequence  of  miracles.  Nor  is  the  fact  contested,  that 
ever  since,  he  has  been  known  through  the  Christian  world,  by  the  name 
of  Thaumaturgus,  or  worker  of  miracles.  Those  facts  are  and  have 
been  notorious.  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  had  very  excellent  opportunities 
of  examination  upon  the  spot ;  he  describes  to  us  some  of  the  documents 
which  in  his  time  were  preserved  in  the  archives  of  the  Church  of  Neo- 
cjEsarea,  and  which  had  been  left  there  by  its  founder.  He  then  spoke  of 
a  public  series  of  facts,  which  he  asserts  were  notoriously  true,  in  the 
vicinity  of  the  place  where  those  facts  occurred,  and  some  of  the  monu- 
ments of  the  miracles  to  which  they  relate  being  as  he  states  in  existence ; 
and  others  testify  without  contradiction,  at  a  subsequent  period  by  two 
or  three  centuries,  that  the  monuments  still  existed  as  evidence  of  the 
facts ;  and  the  generation  who  witnessed  the  facts  and  testified  to  their 
successors,  having  yet  scarcely  disappeared  from  the  place  when  Gregory 
of  Nyssa  flourished.  But  a  stronger  circumstance  remains  to  be  observed 
upon,  which  is,  that  although  only  the  account  of  Gregory  of  Nyssa  has 
been  transmitted  to  us,  yet  it  by  no  means  follows  that  this  is  the  first 
history  which  was  written.  The  question  is  concerning  a  public  fact,  or 
rather  a  series  of  public  facts,  well  known  in  the  place,  and  at  the  time, 
and  having  full  evidence  of  truth  when  the  record  which  we  possess  was 
penned ;  but  a  variety  of  circumstances  make  it  clear,  that  although  this 
is  perhaps  the  oldest  document  which  we  possess,  yet  it  is  not  the  oldest 
which  was  drawn  up.  The  question  is  easily  solved  by  asking,  whether 
Gregory  of  Nyssa  could  have  been  deceived  in  his  inquiry,  and  whether 
he  would  or  could  have  imposed  upon  the  credulity  of  his  flock;  and 
how  did  it  occur,  that  a  vast  number  of  other  flocks  in  the  vicinity  were 
similarly  persuaded.  Archdeacon  Paley  has  been  very  uncandid,  for  he 
has  not  stated  the  fact  accurately,  nor  is  it  upon  even  such  facts  we 
build  our  argument.^ 

Paley 's  next  exemplification  is  the  following : 

' '  The  value  of  this  circumstance  is  shown  to  have  been  accurately  ex- 
emplified in  the  history  of  Ignatius  Loyola,  founder  of  the  order  of 
Jesuits.^  His  life,  written  by  a  companion  of  his,  and  by  one  of  the 
order,  was  published  about  fifteen  years  after  his  death.  In  which  life, 
the  author,  so  far  from  ascribing  any  miracles  to  Ignatius,  industriously 

'^Vid.  S.  Grey.  Njss.  de  Vit.  B.  Grey.  Mirac.  Opif.  Orat.  opp.  Tom.  1,  Ed, 
Morell,  p.  916. 

Of  one  of  the  miraculous  events  in  the  life  of  S.  Gregory,  the  Protestant  Bishop 
Bull  thus  writes:  "No  one  should  think  it  incredible  that  such  a  providence  should 
befall  a  man  whose  whole  life  was  conspicuous  for  revelations  and  miracles,  as  all 
ecclesiastical  writers  who  have  mentioned  him,  (and  who  has  not,)  witness  with  one 
voice." — Defens.  Fid.  Nic.  ii.  12.  cited  in  Essay  on  Development,  p.  180. 

'  Douglas 's  Criterion  of  Miracles,  p.  74. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  285 

states  the  reasons  why  he  was  not  invested  with  any  such  power.  The 
life  was  republished  fifteen  years  afterwards,  with  the  addition  of  many 
circumstances,  which  were  the  fruit,  the  author  says,  of  further  inquiry, 
and  of  diligent  examination ;  but  still,  with  a  total  silence  about  miracles. 
When  Ignatius  had  been  dead  nearly  sixty  years,  the  Jesuits  conceiving 
a  wish  to  have  the  founder  of  their  order  placed  in  the  Roman  calendar, 
began,  as  it  should  seem,  for  the  first  time,  to  attribute  to  him  a  cata- 
logue of  miracles,  which  could  not  then  be  distinctly  disproved;  and 
which  there  was,  in  those  who  governed  the  Church,  a  strong  disposition 
to  admit  upon  the  slenderest  proofs." 

Paley  refers  to  Douglas,  who  only  takes  up  a  refuted  objection  of 
Bayle;  and  thus  the  archdeacon's  argument  to  exclude  Popery  is  without 
any  good  grounds.  Let  us  examine  the  facts  of  the  assertion.  "In 
which  life,  the  author,  so  far  from  ascribing  any  miracles  to  Ignatius, 
industriously  states  the  reasons  why  he  was  not  invested  with  any  such 
power. ' '  Any  person  reading  this  passage,  would  naturally  suppose  that 
Ribadiniera,  who  is  the  biographer  referred  to,  asserted  that  Ignatius 
did  not  work  any  miracles :  such  is  evidently  the  meaning  insinuated  by 
Paley.  Yet  no  such  assertion  is  made:  the  expression  is,  Quamobrem 
illius  sanctitas  minus  est  testata  miraculis. — "Wherefore  his  sanctity  is 
less  proved  by  miracles. ' '  Producing  a  smaller  quantity,  is  by  no  means 
omitting  to  produce  any  quantity,  and  still  less  is  it  asserting  wo  quantity 
of  evidence  could  be  produced.  But  in  truth  the  minus  does  not  appear 
to  refer  to  the  quantity  of  the  miracles,  but  to  place  the  evidence  of 
sanctity,  by  inference  from  miracles,  in  minor  distinction  to  the  direct 
evidence  of  sanctity  exhibited  in  conduct.  This  is  no  denial  of  the  ex- 
istence of  miracles,  but  the  assertion  of  a  more  plain  and  higher  species 
of  direct  proof.  Ribadiniera  in  the  last  chapter,  page  209,  of  the  first 
edition,  denies  beforehand  the  truth  of  the  archdeacon's  assertion  in  two 
very  effectual  ways.  Mihi  tantum  abest  ut  ad  vitam  Ignatii  illustran- 
dam  miracula  deesse  videantur,  ut  multa  eaque  prgestantissima  judicem- 
in  luce  versari.  "So  far  am  I  from  believing  that  there  exists  any 
want  of  miracles  to  illustrate  the  life  of  Ignatius,  that  I  would  judge 
that  many  and  those  of  the  best  description  are  plainly  evident."  How 
could  Bayle,  or  Douglas,  or  Paley  assert  that  this  man  stated  that  Igna- 
tius wrought  no  miracles 'I  The  second  mode  of  contradicting  Paley 's 
assertion  is  given  in  that  same  chapter,  where  he  recapitulates  several 
miraculous  facts  which  he  had  already  stated  in  his  narrative.  This  first 
history  was  published  in  1572.  The  same  author  did,  fifteen  years  after, 
viz.  in  1587,  publish  the  history  of  the  life  of  Ignatius  with  some  ad- 
ditions; but  it  is  not  true  as  the  achdeacon  asserts,  "still  with  a  total 


286  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

silence  about  miracles."  Nor  is  his  next  insinuation  true,  that  nothing 
more  was  done  until  sixty  years  after  his  death:  for  the  same  author 
shortly  after  this  second  edition,  published  a  Latin  abstract  of  the  first 
compilation  which  is  styled  Alteram  breviorem  vitam,  sed  multis  ac 
novis  miraculis  auctam.  "Another  shorter  life  but  augmented  by 
many  and  new  miracles.''''  In  this  he  states  that  he  was  cautious  before 
of  relating  miracles,  which  though  duly  testified,  had  not  been  as  yet 
duly  and  fully  examined  and  approved,  and  that  those  which  he  did 
previously  relate  were  selected  by  the  judgment  of  prudent  persons; 
being  but  a  few  of  those  which  were  commonly  testified  and  believed.  Of 
course  there  is  no  truth  whatever  in  the  assertion  of  Paley  that  when 
Ignatius  had  been  dead  nearly  sixty  years,  the  Jesuits  began  for  the 
first  time  to  attribute  to  him  a  catalogue  of  miracles  which  could  not 
then  be  distinctly  disproved.  He  died  in  1556.  All  the  cotemporary 
historians  tell  us  that  the  people  esteemed  him  a  saint  even  before  his 
death;  and  that  their  opinion  was  upheld  amongst  other  testimony,  by 
miracles.  In  1572,  an  intimate  companion  of  his  selects  from  amongst 
many  and  those  of  the  best  description  of  miracles,  some  which  he  speci- 
fies in  his  book  which  is  published.  In  1587,  a  new  edition  with  additions, 
is  published  by  the  same  author,  afterwards  an  abridgment  of  the  first, 
with  many  new  miracles  added,  is  published:  the  writer  states  that  a 
reason  for  not  having  inserted  many  of  those  at  an  earlier  period  was 
caution,  until  the  proofs  of  the  fact  and  the  nature  of  the  works  should 
have  been  more  closely  examined.  In  1604,  the  same  author  prints  again 
an  account  of  the  life  of  Ignatius  amongst  his  Lives  of  Holy  Persons. 
This  was  in  Spanish ;  and  he  states  ' '  Though  when  I  first  printed  his  life 
in  1572,  I  knew  some  miracles  of  the  holy  father,  I  did  not  look  upon 
them  to  be  so  verified  by  process  {averiguados)  as  to  think  I  ought  to 
publish  them,  but  they  were  afterwards  fully  proved  by  credible  wit- 
nesses to  be  true,  during  the  authentical  process  taken  in  order  to  his 
canonization ;  and  the  Lord  who  was  pleased  to  exalt  him,  and  make  him 
glorious  on  earth,  daily  works,  on  his  account,  such  miracles  as  to  oblige 
me  here  to  relate  them ;  taken  from  the  original  juridicial  informations 
which  several  bishops  have  taken  and  from  the  depositions  made  on 
oath  of  the  persons  upon  whom  they  were  wrought, ' '  and  so  forth. 

Thus  we  have  public,  common  testimony  during  his  life ;  and  after 
his  death,  we  have  the  written  testimony  of  his  biographer  to  the  gen- 
eral proposition  and  to  some  special  facts,  fifteen  years  after  his  death. 
But  those  facts  had  been  examined  at  the  time,  though  not  judicially  es- 
tablished even  as  yet,  though  the  evidences  and  certificates,  and  the  pro- 
cesses were  preserved.     The  law  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  which  had 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  287 


closed  but  a  few  years  before,  prevented  their  hasty  publication ;  within 
the  space  of  thirty  years  the  whole  is  re-asserted,  after  more  mature  ex- 
amination, new  developments  are  made,  and  the  former  certificates  and 
inquiries  are  made  now  available,  and  another  publication  with  ad- 
ditional evidence  and  new  facts  appears :  in  1604,  within  40  years  after 
his  death,  extracts  are  made  from  the  authenticated  and  maturely  ex- 
amined depositions  and  informations,  and  new  testimonies  of  recent 
miracles  are  added.  With  all  this  accumulation  of  facts  before  us,  what 
are  we  to  say  of  Archdeacon  Paley,  who  asserts  that  it  was  not  until 
nearly  sixty  years  after  his  death,  which  would  be  about  1616,  that 
miracles  began  to  be  first  attributed  to  Ignatius?  The  documents  hav- 
ing been  fully  substantiated  and  tested,  application  was  made  for  the 
examination  of  the  evidence  in  Rome,  now  that  it  had  passed  the  scru- 
tiny of  several  other  tribunals.  In  1609,  after  mature  examination.  Pope 
Paul  V.  admitted  the  sufficiency  of  the  evidence.  Again  in  1622,  Greg- 
ory XV.  heard  the  report  of  the  Cardinal  de  Monte  and  the  other  com- 
missioners, who  examined  the  evidence  after  a  re-examination  at  the  tri- 
bunal of  the  Rota,  and  a  review  of  that  examination  by  the  Congregation 
of  Rites.  Upon  the  hearing  of  the  report,  the  Pope  Gregory  gave  his 
full  assent  in  that  year,  and  in  1623,  Pope  Urban  VIII.  published  the 
bull  of  canonization.  I  shall  merely  ask,  whether  if  Paley  knew  those 
facts,  he  was  candid  and  honest  in  the  construction  of  his  sentence.  If 
Paley,  who  was  originally  educated  a  Protestant  and  who  only  copied 
Douglas,  as  Douglas  followed  Bayle,  might  perhaps  have  been  excusably 
ignorant,  surely  White  can  have  no  such  excuse.  If  then  Paley  had  led 
him  to  believe  that  a  miracle  was  evidence  of  revelation,  he  must  have 
been  the  most  illiterate  Catholic  clergyman,  that  could  be  ordinarily  met 
with,  if  he  did  not  see  that  the  Roman  Catholic  religion  was  revealed  by 
God :  for  it  possesses  the  most  indubitable  proofs  of  a  succession  of  mir- 
acles. In  the  very  case  of  St.  Ignatius  adduced  by  Paley,  so  far  from 
being  true  as  he  asserts,  that  nearly  sixty  years  had  elapsed  before  the 
Jesuits  began  to  attribute  miracles  to  him,  the  sixty-six  years  which  inter- 
vened between  his  death  and  his  canonization  were  marked  by  close  and 
extensive  inquiries  into  the  truth  of  several  miracles,  which  were  fre- 
quently published  and  kept  under  the  public  view.  Of  this  it  is  barely 
possible,  charitably  to  suppose  Paley  ignorant;  but  White  could  not 
have  been  ignorant  of  the  fact  unless  he  was  a  grossly  ignorant  priest.  I 
care  not  which  side  of  the  alternative  the  accumulating  phalanx  of  our 
reverend  opponents  will  take :  they  are  welcome  to  choose.  But  I  shall 
proceed  to  examine  Paley  still  farther,  to  show  that  he  could  not  make 


288  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

White  resume  a  belief  in  the  truth  of  Christianity,  without  causing  him 
to  embrace  Catholicism. 

I  remain  yours, 

B.  c. 

LETTER  IX. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Oct.  30,  1826. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends — I  shall  in  this  letter  continue  my  examination  of  Dr. 
Paley's  alleged  reasons  why  the  principle,  that  although  miracles  prove 
revelation,  they  ought  not  to  prove  Catholicism,  is  to  be  held.  You  will 
recollect,  that  this  reasoning  is  founded  upon  the  assumption  that  no 
miracle  in  favor  of  Catholicism  exists;  my  assertion  is  that  Mr.  White 
had  evidence  of  the  existence  of  many  such  miracles,  and  that  if  he  there- 
fore believed  Paley's  principle  that  miracles  prove  revelation,  he  ought 
to  have  become  a  Roman  Catholic,  and  farther  that  he  must,  if  he  had 
been  a  well  instructed  Roman  Catholic,  have  seen  that  Paley  was  guilty 
of  several  falsehoods  in  his  attempt  to  avoid  the  conclusion  "that  Cath- 
olicism must  be  a  divine  institution,  if  Christianity  is  a  divine  institu- 
tion ; ' '  because  the  reasons  which  prove  the  one  prove  the  other.  It  was 
for  this  purpose  that  in  my  last  letter  I  examined  Paley,  and  for  this  pur- 
pose I  now  continue  the  examination. 

Under  the  second  head  of  chapter  i,  prop,  ii,  part  i,  the  archdeacon 
says  of  miracles,  ''We  may  leave  out  of  the  case,  accounts  published  in 
one  country,  of  what  passed  in  a  different  country,  without  any  proof 
that  such  accounts  were  known  and  received  at  home."  With  this  prin- 
ciple I  fully  agree ;  because  the  account  of  the  miracle  is  the  account  of  a 
fact,  and  the  fact  must  necessarily  be  first  kno'O'n,  and  received  as  truth, 
where  it  occurred,  and  it  then  travels  abroad  w'ith  authority.  But  the 
principle  has  its  main  value  in  its  last  clause,  without  any  proof  that  such 
accounts  were  known  and  received  at  home,  for  certainly,  the  mere  publi- 
cation in  one  country  of  what  passed  in  a  distant  country,  would  be  no 
reason  for  disbelieving  the  truth  of  the  occurrence ;  otherwise,  the  arch- 
deacon could  not  expect  that  any  person  in  England  should  believe  that 
Moses  caused  water  to  gush  forth  miraculously  from  a  rock  in  Arabia. 
The  whole  force  of  the  principle  is  then  found  in  the  clause  which  I  have 
marked  in  italics. 

The  archdeacon  thus  exemplifies.  "Those  miracles  of  Francis 
Xavier,  the  Indian  missionary,  with  many  others  of  the  Romish  Breviary, 
are  liable  to  the  same  objection,  viz :  that  the  accounts  of  them  were  pub- 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO   WHITE  289 

lished  at  a  vast  distance  from  the  supposed  scene  of  the  wonders."  We 
have  seen  that  the  bare  publication  at  a  distance  from  the  scene  of 
action  is  not  the  jet  of  the  principle  which  Paley  laid  down,  yet  in  his 
phrase,  this  is  the  only  circumstance  which  he  objects  to  the  miracles  of 
this  saint ;  therefore,  as  logicians  would  say,  he  has  changed  his  middle 
term,  than  which  a  more  ingenious  or  discreditable  artifice  could  scarce- 
ly be  used.  His  fallacy  in  such  a  case  would  be  enough  to  convict  him 
of  deliberate  dishonesty:  to  save  him  from  which,  we  must  suppose  he 
meant,  that  those  miracles  of  St.  Francis  Xavier  which  were  published 
at  a  vast  distance  from  the  scene  of  action,  were  not  known  or  received 
as  truths  in  India,  and  in  Japan,  where  they  were  said  to  have  occurred. 
We  are  thus  brought  to  a  simple  inquiry  regarding  the  fact  of  their 
having  been  known  and  received  as  true,  where  they  are  stated  to  have 
occurred :  if  they  were  so  received,  the  archdeacon  is  erroneous ;  if  they 
were  not,  we  must  give  up  the  miracles.  Let  us  therefore  examine :  I 
shall  give  but  an  outline,  which  I  shall  at  any  time  that  the  cause  of 
truth  may  require  it,  be  ready  to  fill  up.  In  the  years  1542,  and  1543, 
the  miracles  of  St.  Francis  Xavier  were  so  well  known  and  received  as 
truths  at  Cape  Comorin,  that  in  consequence  of  their  splendid  evidence, 
the  prince  of  that  region,  on  their  account,  gave  leave  to  his  people  to 
change  their  religion  and  to  become  members  of  the  Church,  and  vast 
numbers,  amongst  whom  were  many  of  the  principal  inhabitants,  conse- 
quently became  Christians  of  the  Catholic  Church.  In  the  year  1543, 
upon  the  Pearl  Coast,  he  procured  the  conversion  of  vast  numbers,  and 
the  respect  of  others,  and  the  hatred  of  many,  by  his  miracles,  amongst 
which  were  the  raising  to  life  of  four  dead  persons.  In  1544  and  1545, 
in  the  kingdom  of  Travancor  he  received  the  gift  of  tongues,  so  that  he 
preached  and  instructed,  and  familiarly  conversed  in  languages  which 
he  had  never  previously  heard  spoken.  The  very  fact  of  which  was  testi- 
fied by  the  people  to  whom  he  preached,  and  by  the  consequences  of  his 
preaching,  in  their  conversion  and  reformation.  At  Coulon,  a  village  in 
Travancor,  near  Cape  Comorin,  when  the  people  did  not  appear  disposed 
to  conversion  by  his  preaching,  after  a  short  prayer,  he  caused  them  to 
open  a  grave,  in  which  a  body  had  been  interred  by  them  on  the  previous 
day,  and  which  body  was  now  putrifying  and  emitting  a  noisome  stench, 
and  commanding  the  dead  man  to  arise  in  the  name  of  the  living  God, 
he  was  restored  to  life,  and  the  people  were  converted,  and  demanded 
baptism;  he  also  in  the  same  kingdom  raised  to  life  a  young  man,  a 
Christian,  whose  friends  were  bearing  the  body  to  interment :  those  facts 
were  so  notorious,  and  so  far  believed  and  received  as  to  produce  the  con- 
version of  the  great  bulk  of  the  people  in  the  course  of  a  few  months,  in 


290  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


those  years.    In  1549,  lie  publicly  restored  to  life  a  young  pagan  lady  of 
quality,  who  had  been  dead  during  an  entire  day,  and  by  his  blessing 
restored  a  deformed  child  to  beauty,  in  Maxuma  in  Japan;  the  conse- 
quences of  which  miracles  were  several  conversions.    In  1550,  at  Aman- 
guchi,  in  Japan,  he  had  the  gift  of  tongues,  speaking  several  new  lan- 
guages to  persons  of  nations  in  whose  tongues  he  had  never  been  in- 
structed.    In  1552,  he  restored  to  life  at  Malacca,  a  young  man  named 
Francis  Ciavos,  who  afterwards  became  a  member  of  the  society  of 
Jesuits.    This  fact  was  notorious  and  received  at  the  place.    King  John 
III,   of  Portugal,  ordered,  besides  the  usual  examinations  which  the 
Church  requires,  as  mentioned  in  my  last  letter,  that  the  depositions 
should  be  taken,  and  the  examinations  made  in  several  places,  and  a 
process  of  the  whole  dra\^Ti  up  at  Goa;  the  examination  was  made  in 
the  several  places,  and  the  results  were  transmitted  to  Europe.     Sub- 
sequent travellers  and  missionaries  found  in  all  the  places  the  most 
satisfactory  evidence  of  the  miracles  amongst  the  people.    The  miracles 
themselves  are  known  in  the  several  places  to  have  been  the  principal 
cause  of  the  conversion  of  vast  numbers,  who  became  martyrs,  and  of 
the  creation  of  the  Churches  which  still  in  many  of  those  places  subsist 
and  preserve  the  testimonials.     I  avow  to  you  that  no  effort  which  ever 
has  been  made  to  destroy  or  to  discredit  evidence,  appears  to  me  more 
barefaced  and  desperate,  than  that  of  Paley,  when  he  asserts  that  the 
miracles  of  "Francis  Xavier,  the  Indian  missionary,"  belonged  to  that 
class  which  were  "published  in  one  country  as  having  passed  in  a  dis- 
tant country,  without  any  proof  that  such  accounts  were  known  or  re- 
ceived at  home."     I  was  confounded  and  shocked  when  I  read  it.     I 
saw,  of  course  that  he  had  a  desperate  game  to  play,  but  when  I  re- 
flected upon  this  passage,  all  my  respect  for  Archdeacon  Paley  van- 
ished :  and  I  still  lament  that  so  clear  a  head  should  have  had  recourse 
to  so  unprincipled  a  mode  of  sustaining  any  cause.    It  is  true  that  Paley 
endeavors  to  escape  upon  the  shoulders  of  Douglas,  to  whose  work  he 
refers :  but  for  a  man  who  had  to  treat  of  so  important  a  subject,  such  a 
reference  is  no  excuse.    White  is  still  less  excusable,  because  if  he  had 
paid  one  particle  of  attention  to  his  own  early  studies,  he  must  have  seen 
how  flagrantly  erroneous  was  Paley 's  statement,  and  of  course  how  in- 
conclusive his  argument.     Did  Bishop  Kemp  ever  take  the  trouble  of 
examining  our  evidence  of  those  facts? 

Doctor  Paley,  in  his  section  vii,  of  the  same  chapter,  has  the  follow- 
ing passage : 

"We  have  laid  out  of  the  case  those  accounts  which  require  no 
more  than  a  simple  assent;  and  we  now  also  lay  out  of  the  case  those 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  291 


which  come  merely  in  affirmance  of  opinions  already  formed.  This  last 
circumstance  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  to  notice  well.  It  has  long 
been  observed,  that  Popish  miracles  happen  in  Popish  countries;  that 
they  make  no  converts ;  which  proves  that  stories  are  accepted,  when  they 
fall  in  with  principles  already  fixed,  with  the  public  sentiments,  or  with 
sentiments  of  a  party  already  engaged  on  the  side  the  miracle  supports, 
which  would  not  be  attempted  to  be  produced  in  the  face  of  enemies,  in 
opposition  to  reigning  tenets  or  favorite  prejudices,  or  when,  if  they  be 
believed,  the  belief  must  draw  men  away  from  their  preconceived  and 
habitual  opinions,  from  their  modes  of  life  and  rules  of  action.  In  the 
former  case,  men  may  not  only  receive  a  miraculous  account,  but  may 
both  act  and  suffer  on  the  side,  and  in  the  cause,  which  the  miracle  sup- 
ports, yet  not  act  or  suffer  for  the  miracle,  but  in  pursuance  of  a  prior 
persuasion.  The  miracle,  like  any  other  argument  which  only  confirms 
what  was  before  believed,  is  admitted  with  little  examination.  In  the 
moral,  as  in  the  natural  world,  it  is  change  which  requires  a  cause. 
Men  are  easily  fortified  in  their  old  opinions,  driven  from  them  with 
great  difficulty.  Now  how  does  this  apply  to  the  Christian  history  ?  The 
miracles  there  recorded,  were  wrought  in  the  midst  of  enemies,  under  a 
government,  a  priesthood,  and  a  magistracy,  decidedly  and  vehemently 
adverse  to  them,  and  to  the  pretensions  which  they  supported.  They 
were  Protestant  miracles  in  a  Popish  country;  they  were  Popish  mir- 
acles in  the  midst  of  Protestants.  They  produced  a  change ;  they  estab- 
lished a  society  upon  the  spot,  adhering  to  the  belief  of  them ;  they  made 
converts ;  and  those  who  were  converted  gave  up  to  the  testimony  their 
most  fixed  opinions  and  most  favorite  prejudices.  They  who  acted  and 
suffered  in  the  cause,  acted  and  suffered  for  their  miracles:  for  there 
was  no  anterior  persuasion  to  induce  them,  prior  reverence,  prejudice,  or 
partiality  to  take  hold  of.  Jesus  had  not  one  follower  when  he  set  up 
his  claim.  His  miracles  gave  birth  to  his  sect.  No  part  of  his  description 
belongs  to  the  ordinary  evidence  of  Heathen  or  Popish  miracles.  Even 
most  of  the  miracles  alleged  to  have  been  performed  by  Christians,  in 
the  second  and  third  centuries  of  its  asra,  want  this  confirmation.  It 
constitutes  indeed  a  line  of  partition  between  the  origin  and  the  progress 
of  Christianity.  Frauds  and  fallacies  might  mix  themselves  with  the 
progress,  which  could  not  possibly  take  place  in  the  commencement  of 
the  religion ;  at  least,  according  to  any  laws  of  human  conduct  that  we 
are  acquainted  with.  What  should  suggest  to  the  first  propagators  of 
Christianity,  especially  to  fishermen,  tax-gatherers,  and  husbandmen, 
such  a  thought  as  that  of  changing  the  religion  of  the  world ;  what  could 
bear  them  through  the  difficulties  in  which  the  attempt  engaged  them; 


292  CONTROVEKSY  Vol. 

what  could  procure  any  degree  of  success  to  the  attempt;  are  questions 
which  apply  with  great  force,  to  the  setting  out  of  the  institution,  with 
less,  to  every  future  stage  of  it." 

In  this  the  writer  evidently  forgets  both  himself  and  history;  he  also 
lays  down  a  principle  which  is  untrue,  or  the  Scriptures  of  the  old  law 
are  false  records,  and  Mr.  White  ought  to  have  seen  this  if  he  was  a 
theologian.  I  shall  dwell  a  short  time  upon  this  latter  proposition  of  the 
archdeacon,  that  we  are  to  leave  out  of  the  case  all  those  miracles  which 
come  merely  ' '  in  affirmance  of  opinions  already  formed, ' '  and  which  '  *  cir- 
cumstance it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  to  notice  well."  The  conclu- 
sion which  the  archdeacon  would  have  us  to  draw,  is  necessarily,  that 
when  a  person  says  that  he  is  commissioned  to  work  a  miracle,  to  affirm 
the  truth  of  a  doctrine  previously  received,  we  need  not  inquire  whether 
a  miracle  is  wrought  or  not,  but  we  must  disbelieve  him  altogether. 
Therefore,  in  plain  fact,  we  must  never  believe  that  a  miracle  has  been 
wrought  since  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  and  so  says  the  Doctor :  for  he 
says,  "even  most  of  the  miracles  alleged  to  have  been  performed  by 
Christians  in  the  second  and  third  centuries,  want  this  confirmation." 
Here  is  the  consciousness  of  a  bad  cause  manifestly  exhibited  in  the 
vagueness  of  the  expression  most  of  the  miracles.  Why  not  boldly  say, 
all  of  them,  if  his  position  is  a  good  one ;  or  specify  some  mode  by  which 
we  may  be  able  to  say  definitely  and  decisively  which  of  the  alleged  mir- 
acles we  ought  to  examine  ?  I  assert  that  we  ought  to  examine  every  al- 
leged miracle,  whether  of  the  first  or  of  the  nineteenth  century,  and 
[that]  we  have  no  power  to  tell  the  Almighty  that  he  shall  not  make  a 
revelation  to  us  at  one  time,  as  well  as  at  another ;  and  I  assert  that  the 
proof  of  the  truth  of  the  miracle  is  to  be  found  in  its  own  nature,  and 
not  in  the  circumstance  of  the  time  at  which  it  is  wrought.  There  is  noth- 
ing in  the  nature  of  things,  or  in  the  nature  of  religion  to  make  it  ira- 
possble  for  God  to  do  now  works  similar  to  those  done  by  him  at  any 
former  time.  The  examiner  has  only  to  ascertain  two  points:  first, 
whether  this  event  occurred:  secondly,  whether  the  occurrence  could 
have  taken  place  without  God's  special  intervention  beyond  the  effects 
of  his  natural  law.  The  first  he  ascertains  by  ordinary  testimony,  the 
second  he  ascertains  by  the  common  belief  of  competent  persons  as  to 
what  the  law  of  nature  cannot  reach  to.  Paley's  other  distinction  is  ar- 
bitrary and  unfounded,  viz.  that  a  miracle  is  unnecessary  for  the  con- 
firmation of  truth  already  known ;  if  he  means  that  this  truth  is  known 
and  believed  by  all  persons,  and  that  there  exists  no  danger  of  a  loss 
of  truth,  and  of  a  relapse  into  error,  such  a  case  is  metaphysical:  yet 
even  in  this  supposition,  God  might,  in  his  wisdom,  think  it  as  neces- 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO    WHITE  293 

sary  to  confirm  for  one  generation,  that  truth  which  had  been  previously 
revealed  to  a  former  race,  as  to  prove  its  original  revelation  to  an  ante- 
cedent people.  Besides,  there  has  in  fact  been  no  age  in  which  it  was 
not  necessary  to  make  truth  manifest  to  infidels. 

But  the  scriptural  facts  are  all  against  the  archdeacon.  The  Jewish 
people  in  Egypt  were  not  an  infidel  race :  yet  we  find  a  series  of  miracles 
wrought  to  confirm  them  in  the  belief  of  those  doctrines  which  they  had 
received  by  tradition  from  their  fathers,  as  well  as  to  prove  the  legation 
of  Moses.  They  received  no  new  doctrines  at  Sinai ;  they  only  received 
a  religious  organization,  and  had  a  ritual  law  imposed  upon  them.  But 
suppose  that  the  miracles  wrought  at  Sinai  were  to  shew  them  that  this  or- 
ganization and  this  ritual  ought  to  be  submitted  to  and  preserved;  ac- 
cording to  Paley,  the  people  of  Israel  ought  to  put  out  of  the  case  every 
alleged  miracle  "in  affirmance  of  opinions  thus  already  formed,"  and 
therefore  all  the  miracles  related  in  the  books  of  Josue,  Judges,  Samuel, 
Kings,  Chronicles,  the  Prophets,  and  so  forth,  to  the  end  of  the  old  law, 
"ought  to  be  put  out  of  the  case."  Here  is  a  pretty  sweeping  of  some 
hundreds  of  miracles  from  the  sacred  records,  or  else  the  archdeacon's 
principle  is  as  irreligious  as  it  is  unphilosophical.  All  those  miracles 
were  wrought  in  affirmance  of  doctrines,  not  opinions  already  believed, 
not  formed.  Doctor  Paley  ought  to  have  known  that  faith  does  not  allow 
the  formation  of  an  opinion,  but  requires  simple  acceptance  and  unhesi- 
tating belief  of  the  doctrine  which  God  reveals.  What  we  are  taught  by 
heaven  is  not  opinion ;  opinion  is  of  our  own  formation.  I  should  like  to 
know  what  the  Doctor  would  advise  in  case  that  I  were  one  of  five  hun- 
dred who  saw  a  man  raised  from  the  dead  in  affirmance  of  faith.  Would 
he  tell  me  that  such  a  supposition  is  absurdity,  because  miracles  are  not 
wrought  now,  that  his  principles  must  be  true,  that  there  must  be  some 
error,  though  he  could  not  point  it  out  ?  Yet  he  should  give  up  his  prin- 
ciple or  make  this  assertion:  if  he  makes  this  assertion,  how  will  he 
answer  Voltaire  or  Hume,  who  tell  him  exactly  the  same  regarding  the 
miracles  which  he  adduces  to  prove  Christianity  ?  Thus  have  good  gen- 
tlemen destroyed  the  foundations  of  revelation  by  attempting  to  subvert 
Catholicism. 

But  I  cannot  rest  here.  The  Doctor's  principle  is  false  or  the  Bible 
is  a  tissue  of  falsehoods :  and  still  more,  Paley  asserts  what  is  not  true,  if 
he  asserts  that  the  miracles  wrought  in  our  Church  in  the  several  ages 
were  wrought  merely  in  affirmance  of  opinion  already  formed.  Was  this 
the  character  of  the  miracles  of  St.  Francis  Xavier  ?  Were  not  his  mir- 
acles wrought,  as  were  those  of  the  apostles,  to  effect  the  conversion  of  un- 
believers ?    Was  this  the  characteristic  of  those  of  St.  Gregory  Thauma- 


294  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

turgus  ?  Were  they  not  wrought  for  the  conversion  of  the  infidel  people 
of  NeocJEsarea?  Did  they  not  in  each  case  produce  the  same  effect? 
Such,  too,  was  the  case  in  thousands  of  instances  of  the  best  authenticated 
miracles  which  have  taken  place  in  our  Church  in  every  age  from  the 
days  of  the  Apostles  to  the  present  day ;  in  accordance  with  the  promises 
of  the  Saviour,  given  without  any  limitation  of  time,  as  may  be  seen  in 
a  variety  of  places,  as  [for  instance]  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  Mark,  xvi, 
17-18,  "And  these  signs  shall  follow  them  that  believe:  in  my  name,  they 
shall  east  out  devils :  they  shall  speak  with  new  tongues :  they  shall  take 
up  serpents :  and  if  they  shall  drink  any  deadly  thing,  it  shall  not  hurt 
them:  they  shall  lay  their  hands  upon  the  sick  and  they  shall 
recover."  These  were  miracles  wrought  in  an  infidel  country; 
they  were  not  in  a  Popish  country,  as  the  archdeacon  is  pleased 
to  be  rude  and  uncivil  in  his  nicknames.  Mr.  White  ought  to  have  known 
that  Popish  miracles  have  been  frequently  wrought  in  the  midst  of  Pro- 
testants, as  well  as  of  infidels,  and  therefore  that  Paley's  assertion  was 
untrue.  Mr.  White's  American  sponsors  have  attempted,  and  a  most 
miserable  and  abortive  attempt  it  was,  to  get  rid  of  a  fact  which  I  be- 
lieve to  be  palpably  miraculous,  though  I  am  not  authorized  officially  to 
publish  it  as  such,  which  took  place  in  their  owti  city.  I  would  this  day, 
after  all  their  leisure  for  examination,  ask  them,  was  Mrs.  Mattingly,  of 
the  city  of  Washington,  instantaneously  healed  from  an  incurable  dis- 
order not  three  years  since  ?  I  assert  that  she  was :  and  I  call  upon  the 
reverend  gentleman  to  produce,  in  the  whole  Union,  any  physician  of  a 
reputable  character,  who  will,  to  a  plain  statement  of  the  facts  of  her 
cure,  affix  his  certificate  that  such  a  cure  can  be  accounted  for  by  any 
natural  process,  or  could  take  place  without  being  miraculous.  Mr.  Haw- 
ley  knows  also  that  conversions  took  place  in  consequence  of  this  cure. 

In  the  commencement  of  his  first  chapter,  prop,  ii,  part  1,  Paley 
says: 

' '  If  the  reformers  in  the  time  of  Wickliffe,  or  of  Luther,  or  those  of 
England,  in  the  time  of  Henry  the  Eighth,  or  of  Queen  Mary;  or  the 
founders  of  our  religious  sects  since,  such  as  were  Mr.  Whitefield  and 
Mr.  Wesley  in  our  own  times ;  had  undergone  the  life  of  toil  and  exer- 
tion, of  danger  and  of  sufferings,  which  we  know  that  many  of  them  did 
undergo  for  a  miraculous  story ;  that  is  to  say,  if  they  had  founded  their 
public  ministry  iipon  the  allegation  of  miracles  wrought  within  their 
own  knowledge,  and  upon  narratives  which  could  not  be  resolved  into 
delusion  or  mistake ;  and  if  it  appeared,  that  their  conduct  really  had  its 
origin  in  these  accounts,  I  should  have  believed  them." 

Now  the  archdeacon  cannot  complain  of  my  asserting  that  it  is  as 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  295 

necessary  in  many  eases  to  work  a  miracle  to  preserve  truth  formerly  de- 
livered, as  to  establish  it  originally,  when  I  shew  its  necessity  from  the 
nature  of  the  case,  and  the  authority  of  scripture.  I  shall  give  but  an 
outline  and  a  fact.  Suppose  in  those  times  to  which  he  alludes,  the  whole 
body  of  the  professors  of  Christianity  had  swerved  from  the  truth,  and 
that  King  Henry  or  Martin  Luther  was  commissioned  to  bring  them  back 
to  pure  doctrine  and  virtuous  conduct,  would  they  not  have  as  difficult  a 
task  in  converting  [them  from]  Romish  idolatry  as  the  first  Apostles  had 
in  converting  the  former  pagans?  Suppose  those  virtuous  reformers  to 
have  been  wrong,  but  still  successful  in  deluding  many,  would  not  the 
miracles  be  as  necessary  to  preserve  the  faith  of  the  just,  and  to  con- 
found the  apostates,  as  it  was  in  the  days  of  Elias,  when  he  wrought  so 
many  to  confirm  the  faithful  Jews,  and  to  confound  those  who  had  apos- 
tatised ?  Why  then  would  the  archdeacon  not  believe  a  miracle  wrought 
in  support  of  the  truth  of  the  old  religion,  as  he  would  if  it  could  be 
wrought  against  it?  He  gives  us  his  reason  in  a  subsequent  passage  in 
the  second  paragraph  of  section  vii.  of  the  same  chapter : 

"Hath  any  founder  of  a  new  sect  among  Christians  pretended  to 
miraculous  power,  and  succeeded  by  his  pretensions?"  ''Were  these 
powers  claimed  or  exercised  by  the  founders  of  the  sects  of  the  Waldenses 
and  Albigenses  ?  Did  Wickliffe  in  England  pretend  to  it  ?  Did  Huss  or 
Jerome  in  Bohemia?  Did  Luther  in  Germany,  Zwinglius  in  Switzer- 
land, Calvin  in  France,  or  any  of  the  Reformers,  advance  this  plea? 
The  French  prophets,  in  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century,  ven- 
tured to  allege  miraculous  evidence,  and  immediately  ruined  their  cause 
by  their  temerity." 

So,  then,  because  no  miracles  were  wrought  by  the  opponents  of  the 
Church,  we  are  to  say  they  were  not  wrought  in  the  Church.  When 
Paley,  quoting  from  Campbell,  asks,  "Did  Calvin  advance  this  plea?" 
I  answer  that  he  did,  and  made  a  most  deplorable  failure.  For,  in  at- 
tempting to  revive  a  sleeping  tailor,  he  killed  him.  If  Mr.  White  had 
been  even  partially  instructed,  he  could  not  but  see  that  all  the  attempts 
of  Paley  to  overthrow  the  evidence  in  favor  of  Catholicism  were  abortive. 

In  the  same  chapter,  under  the  head  of  appreciating  the  miracles 
from  their  own  nature,  the  archdeacon,  in  section  iii,  ranks  under  the 
head  of  doubtful  whether  they  were  miraculous,  admitting  the  truth  of 
the  phenomenon,  "the  extraordinary  circumstances  which  obstructed 
the  re-building  of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  by  Julian."  Doctor  Wav- 
burton,  and  several  other  eminent  Protestant  divines,  admit  fully  and 
maintain  their  miraculous  nature ;  but  as  the  occurence  took  place  about 
the  middle  of  the  fourth  century,  this  period  is  far  too  late  for  the  arch- 


296  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

deacon.  He  therefore  contradicts,  upon  the  subject,  besides  a  whole 
host  of  his  own  divines,  St.  Cyril,  then  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  who  was 
present  and  who  foretold  that  the  obstruction  would  take  place,  St, 
Gregory  Nazianzcn,  who  in  the  next  year  wrote  a  description  of  this 
miracle,  St.  John  Chrysostom,  who  about  twenty  years  after  testified 
its  miraculous  nature,  and  made  solemn  and  public  appeals  founded 
thereon,  St.  Ambrose,  Bishop  of  Milan,  a  cotemporary  who  wrote  upon 
the  subject  in  the  year  388,  Rufinus,  who  lived  upon  the  spot,  Theodoret, 
who  lived  in  the  vicinity,  together  with  Arians  and  Pagans ;  and  any 
person  of  common  observation  must  acknowledge,  if  he  believes  the  truth 
of  the  fact,  that  it  was  necessarily  miraculous. 

In  the  same  paragraph  the  archdeacon  has,  upon  the  authority  oi 
Justin, 

"The  miracles  of  the  second  and  third  century  are,  usually  healing 
the  sick,  and  casting  out  evil  spirits,  miracles  in  which  there  is  room 
for  some  error  or  deception.  We  hear  nothing  of  causing  the  blind  to 
see,  the  lame  to  walk,  the  deaf  to  hear,  the  lepers  to  be  cleansed." 

The  incident  to  the  first  of  those  propositions  carries  with  it  the 
refutation  of  the  principle  sought* to  be  established.  That  principle  is, 
that  healing  the  sick  or  casting  out  evil  spirits,  is  not  a  miracle,  yet  the 
incident  allows  that  they  are  miracles,  but  only  states  that  there  is  room 
for  error  or  deception.  But  if  the  evidence  of  the  fact  be  so  strong 
as  to  leave  no  room  for  error  or  deception,  there  can  be  no  question  of  the 
truth  of  the  fact  itself.  If  the  fact  be  true,  there  is  an  admission  of 
the  truth  of  the  miracle,  thus  as  there  is  equally  strong  evidence  to 
prove  that  those  facts  occurred  in  the  second  and  third  ages  as  to  prove 
that  they  occurred  in  the  first,  there  is  equal  proof  of  the  existence  of 
miracles  in  the  second  and  third  ages  as  in  the  first  age.  If  there  were 
not  miracles  in  those  latter  ages,  there  is  no  reason  for  stating  them  to 
be  miracles  when  related  in  the  gospel.  Thus  will  the  archdeacon,  by 
endeavoring  to  destroy  the  proofs  of  Catholicism,  destroy  the  proofs  of 
Christianity:  and  thus  Mr.  White  ought  to  have  seen  that  if  miracles 
established  the  one,  they  establish  the  other.  Hence,  if  the  principles 
of  Paley  converted  him  to  Christianity,  they  ought  to  have  brought  him 
back  to  Catholicism. 

The  second  proposition  of  the  extract  is  a  manifest  untruth:  for 
the  histories  of  the  second  and  third  ages  abound  in  proofs  of  the  restor- 
ation of  sight,  of  hearing,  of  limbs,  and  even  of  life  itself.  White  ought 
to  have  known  this,  and  other  great  drawbacks,  upon  Paley 's  work, 
some  of  which  I  shall  exhibit  in  my  next. 

I  remain  yours,  b.  c. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO    WHITE  297 

LETTER  X. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Nov.  6,  1826. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends — If  Mr.  White  had  been  a  well  informed  Roman  Cath- 
olic, he  would  have  seen,  as  I  have  shewn,  that  Archdeacon  Paley  was 
either  very  grossly  deceived,  or  wilfully  endeavored  to  delude  his  read- 
ers, in  his  accounts  of  our  miraculous  facts;  he  would  have  seen  full 
evidence  for  a  multitude  of  those  facts  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church, 
in  every  age,  from  that  of  the  Apostles  to  the  present  day.  If,  there- 
fore, he  believed  the  principle  with  which  the  archdeacon  set  out,  viz. 
that  miracles  were  proof  of  revelation,  and  revelation  the  evidence  of 
God's  testimony,  Mr.  White  must  have  seen  that  God's  testimony  was  in 
favor  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church;  and  if  he  followed  Paley 's  train 
of  argument,  he  must,  as  soon  as  he  discovered  the  truth  of  those  evident 
facts,  have  become  a  Roman  Catholic :  or  if  he  did  not,  he  must  have 
rejected  the  principle  which  being  connected  with  those  facts  led  inevi- 
tably to  this  result :  and  thus  he  must  have  come  back  to  what  he  testi- 
fies to  be  the  undoubted  principle  of  Catholicism,  Dohlado's  Letters,  page 
296:  "According  to  their  undoubted  principles  on  this  matter,  they 
must  have  been  either  Catholics  or  Infidels."  This  must  be  the  case 
with  every  person  who  reasons  consistently  upon  the  principles  of  Paley, 
and  who  discovers  the  facts  which  we  say  are  supported  by  irrefragable 
evidence.  I  need  not  dwell  here  upon  the  exemplification,  but  this  con- 
clusion will  flow  inevitably  from  a  great  variety  of  other  arguments. 

I  come  now  to  examine  another  portion  of  Paley 's  production,  to 
shew  that  White  had  in  that  work,  full  evidence  of  the  insincerity  or 
ignorance  of  the  writer.  I  can  scarcely  assert  that  Paley  was  ignorant, 
yet  this  would  be  an  apology  which  I  should  prefer  admitting  to  save 
him  from  the  alternative,  and  indeed  it  is  the  only  plea  which  could 
save  him.  In  his  second  chapter,  supporting  the  second  proposition  of 
his  first  part,  he  proceeds  under  the  pretext  of  refuting  the  objections  of 
Infidels,  really  to  sap  the  foundations  of  the  Catholic  Church,  but  the 
attempt  was  made  in  a  manner  equally  discreditable  as  it  is  futile.  He 
adduces  three  instances  of  alleged  miracles  in  support  of  error :  which 
Mr.  Hume  objects  to,  as  being  untrue  in  fact,  and  yet  apparently  being 
as  well  supported  by  evidence  as  any  of  the  miracles  which  attest  the 
truth  of  Christianity. 

With  the  first,  viz.  ''The  cure  of  a  blind  and  of  a  lame  man  at 
Alexandria,  by  the  Emperor  Vespasian,  as  related  in  Tacitus,"  we  have 
no  concern.     The  other  two  are  those  which  having  been  introduced  as 


298  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


our  best  miracles  by  Mr.  Hume,  and  permitted  to  pass  as  such  by  Paley, 
call  for  our  consideration.  "The  restoration  of  the  limb  of  an  atten- 
dant in  a  Spanish  church,  as  told  by  Cardinal  de  Retz ; ' '  and  ' '  The  cures 
said  to  be  performed  at  the  tomb  of  the  Abbe  Paris,  in  the  beginning  of 
the  present  (the  last)   century." 

Respecting  the  first  of  those,  Paley  writes: 

"The  story  taken  from  the  Memoirs  of  Cardinal  de  Retz,  which  is 
the  second  example  alleged  by  Mr.  Hume,  is  this:  'In  the  church  of 
Saragossa  in  Spain,  the  canons  showed  me  a  man  whose  business  it  was 
to  light  the  lamps ;  telling  me,  that  he  had  been  several  years  at  the  gate 
with  one  leg  only.     I  saw  him  with  two.'  ""^ 

"It  is  stated  by  Mr.  Hume,  that  the  Cardinal,  who  relates  this  story, 
did  not  believe  it :  and  it  nowhere  appears,  that  he  either  examined  the 
limb,  or  asked  the  patient,  or  indeed  any  one,  a  single  question  about 
the  matter.  An  artificial  leg,  wrought  with  art,  would  be  sufficient,  in  a 
place  where  no  such  contrivance  had  ever  before  been  heard  of,  to  give 
origin  and  currency  to  the  report.  The  ecclesiastics  of  the  place  would, 
it  is  probable,  favor  the  story,  inasmuch  as  it  advanced  the  honor  of  their 
image  and  Church.  And  if  they  patronised  it,  no  other  person  at  Sar- 
agossa, in  the  middle  of  the  last  century,  would  care  to  dispute  it.  The 
story  likewise  coincided  not  less  with  the  wishes  and  preconceptions 
of  the  people,  than  with  the  interests  of  their  ecclesiastical  rulers:  so 
that  there  was  prejudice  backed  by  authority,  and  both  operating  upon 
extreme  ignorance,  to  account  for  the  success  of  the  imposture.  If,  as 
I  have  suggested,  the  contrivance  of  an  artificial  limb  was  then  new,  it 
would  not  occur  to  the  Cardinal  himself  to  suspect  it;  especially  under 
the  carelessness  of  mind  with  which  he  heard  the  tale,  and  the  little 
inclination  he  felt  to  scrutinize  or  expose  its  fallacy.^' 

Mr.  White  knew  that  it  was  not  upon  such  evidence  as  this,  the 
Church  to  which  he  had  belonged  rested  her  miracles;  he  knew,  that 
here,  there  might  or  there  might  not,  have  been  a  miracle,  according  as 
the  truth  was,  or  was  not  related ;  but  he  also  knew  that  the  logic  which 
was  taught  in  Seville,  laid  down  an  axiom,  ah  actu  ad  posse  valet  con- 
secutio,  sed  non  vice  versa,  "you  may  fairly  conclude  that  what  has 
been  done  is  possible :  but  you  cannot  argue  that  because  a  thing  is  pos- 
sible it  has  been  done. ' '  Fact  must  rest  upon  evidence  of  the  senses  for 
the  witnesses ;  upon  evidence  of  testimony,  for  others.  In  place  of  using 
this  opportunity  of  making  an  uncharitable,  an  unfounded,  and  a  calum- 
nious attack  upon  Romish  ecclesiastics ;  if  Paley  had  been  an  honest  man, 


^Liv.  iv.  A.  D.  1654. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO    WHITE  299 


he  would  have  given  a  more  direct,  a  more  logical,  and  an  amply  suffi- 
cient answer.  "We  do  not  rest  our  belief  of  the  Christian  Religion  upon 
the  truth  of  this  fact,  but  upon  the  truth  of  thousands  of  facts,  of  each 
of  which  we  have  unquestionable  evidence. — Of  this  we  have  none;  it 
might  be  true ;  but  as  we  have  no  evidence  of  its  truth,  we  do  not  adduce 
it."  But  no;  this  w^ould  not  answer  the  archdeacon's  purpose,  for  in 
truth,  his  only  object  and  Hume's,  so  far  as  regards  the  two  latter  facts, 
was  the  same,  viz.  to  undermine  the  evidence  of  Catholicism,  by  insinu- 
ating that  its  claim  to  miraculous  testimony  in  its  favor,  is  built  upon 
unfounded  stories. 

Let  any  one  examine  the  extraordinary  passage  of  Paley  for  a 
moment,  with  patience.     Cardinal  de  Retz,  it  is  stated,  did  not  believe 
the  story.     Yet  the   Cardinal  was  a  Eoman  Catholic:  thus  the  belief 
of  the  story  is  not  essential  for  the  truth  of  our  religion.     But  the  canons 
of  the  Church  would  naturally  favor  the  story,  though  they  knew  it  to 
be  a  lie,  and  if  the  canons  favored  it,  no  person  in  the  city  of  Saragossa 
would  care  to  dispute  it.     If,  then,  an  entire  city  can,  in  the  middle  of 
the  seventeenth  century,  in  the  centre  of  a  civilized  country  in  Europe, 
be  found  so  bereft  of  all  love  for  truth,  so  careless  of  every  principle 
of  religion,  so  perfectly  acquiescent  to  a  glaring  falsehood,  as  to  believe 
without  examination,  in  the  truth  of  a  stupendous  miracle,  such  as  the 
complete  restoration  of  a  deficient  limb ;   or  if  they  did  examine,  to 
acquiesce  in  testifying  a  notorious  falsehood :  of  what  value  is  history  ? 
Of  what  value  is  human  testimony?     Upon  what  ground  does  Paley 
charge  every  clerical  and  lay  inhabitant  of  Saragossa  with  such  gross 
and  glaring,  foul  and  abominable  irreligion?     My  friends,  did  you  ever 
find  any  Roman  Catholic  writer  so  bereft  of  charity,  so  void  of  feeling, 
so  base,  as  to  make  such  a  charge  as  this,  gratuitously,  upon  the  whole 
body  of  the  Protestant  inhabitants  of  any  large  and  populous  city,  and 
then,  exhibit  by  inference  this  city  as  a  specimen  of  all  other  Protestant 
cities,  and  this  fraud  as  a  correct  specimen  of  the  Protestant  religion? 
Yet  Paley  is  said  to  be  a  liberal  man !     God  forbid  that  all  the  liberality 
of  our  Protestant  fellow-citizens  should  be  confined  to  the  measure  of 
such  liberality  as  this!     To  charge  the  Catholic  Clergy  with  irreligious, 
with  blasphemous  deceit;  to  charge  the  Catholic  Laity  with  profound 
ignorance ;  and  to  exhibit  our  religion,  as  a  system  of  delusion  created 
by  the  success  of  such  vile  imposture — and  all  gratuitously ! !     Yet  this 
book  of  Paley 's  is  put  into  the  hands  of  the  American  youth  in  their 
colleges,  as  the  book  from  which  they  are  to  learn  the  proofs  of  the  Chris- 
tian Religion.     Can  you  now  be  astonished  at  the  estimation  in  which  we 


300  CONTEOVERSY  Vol. 


are  held  by  that  portion  of  our  fellow-citizens  who  have  been  taught  out 
of  this  book  in  those  colleges? 

I  have  dwelt  long  enough  upon  this  very  unbecoming  passage  of 
Paley.  I  shall,  however,  take  the  liberty  of  here  making  a  general  re- 
mark, that  so  far  as  regards  the  special  proofs  of  Catholicism,  we  may 
fairly  assert  in  the  words  of  the  Saviour,  "Whosoever  is  not  with  us  is 
against  us."  There  is  no  person  who  is  not  a  Catholic,  that  will  not 
endeavor  to  destroy  the  proofs  of  Catholicism;  for  that  system,  in  its 
exclusive  truth,  can  hold  no  fellowship  with  any  error,  and  hence  we  find 
it  attacked  alike  by  the  Deist  and  Atheist,  by  the  Trinitarian  and  the 
Unitarian,  by  the  Episcopalian  and  the  Presbyterian,  whilst  in  its  iso- 
lated strength  and  grandeur,  it  stands  erect,  and  uninjured  amidst  the 
assaults  of  all.  Thus  Hume  and  Paley  could  agree  in  their  attack  upon 
our  Church,  and  Paley  more  ingenious  and  more  powerful  than  Hume, 
could  in  his  apparent  zeal  to  demolish  the  bastions  of  infidelity,  level 
his  artillery  at  the  fortress  of  Catholicism,  and  still  whilst  he  poured 
out  his  shot,  cry  that  he  only  sought  to  level  the  protection  of  the  unbe- 
liever, whilst  his  guns  were  in  reality  pointed  far  to  its  right,  and  des- 
tined for  a  different  object. 

As  to  the  second  of  those  cases,  the  paltry  artifice  which  has  so  often 
been  resorted  to  by  party  writers  was  beneath  the  dignity  of  Paley :  his 
mind  should  have  scorned  to  stoop  to  such  trick.  He  knew  that  the 
Jansenists  were  not  Catholics,  and  if  he  did  not.  White  did.  Yet  in  this 
place,  he  insinuates  that  they  were  members  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
though  opposed  by  the  Jesuits  as  a  party.  Thus  he  would  lead  his 
readers  to  believe  that  the  alleged  miracles  at  the  tomb  of  the  Abbe 
Paris  were  such  as  are  relied  upon  by  the  Catholic  Church:  whereas 
the  Catholic  authorities  disproved  the  allegation  of  the  Jansenists.  The 
Catholics  denied  and  disproved  the  occurrence  of  any  miracles  at  the 
tomb.  Hence,  neither  the  case  of  the  man  in  Saragossa,  nor  the  occur- 
rences at  the  tomb  of  the  Abbe  Paris,  can  be  alleged  against  us,  and 
our  answer  is  very  short  and  very  simple — "We  do  not  adduce  them  as 
proofs."  The  archdeacon  was  then  dishonest  in  his  mode  of  stating 
facts,  and  he  was  guilty  of  bad  reasoning  in  drawing  general  conclu- 
sions from  particular  premises.  White  ought  to  have  seen  both  faults, 
and  therefore,  if  he  was  converted  by  the  book  of  Paley,  and  the  evi- 
dence of  miracles  ought  to  have  made  him  a  Christian,  the  same  evidence 
existed  to  make  him  a  Catholic ;  and  the  attempts  of  Paley  to  destroy  its 
force  in  the  latter  case,  were  wholly  ineffectual.  White  knowing  the 
facts  which  proved  the  last  circumstance,  could  not  by  Paley 's  reasoning 
be  made  a  Christian,  without  being  made  a  Catholic.     Hence  we  have 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO    WHITE  301 


good  reason  to  believe,  and  I  shall  yet  shew,  that  he  never  became  a 
consistent  Christian — I  shall  shew  that  he  did  not  believe  the  doctrines 
of  the  Church  of  England. 

' '  The  miracles  related  to  have  been  wrought  at  the  tomb  of  the  Abbe 
Paris,  admit  in  general  of  this  solution.  The  patients  who  frequented 
the  tomb  were  so  affected  by  their  devotion,  their  expectation,  the  place, 
the  solemnity,  and,  above  all,  by  the  sympathy  of  the  surrounding  multi- 
tude, that  many  of  them  were  thrown  into  violent  convulsions,  which 
convulsions,  in  certain  instances,  produced  a  removal  of  disorder,  depend- 
ing upon  obstruction.  We  shall,  at  this  day,  have  the  less  difficulty  in 
admitting  the  above  account,  because  it  is  the  very  same  thing  as  hath 
lately  been  experienced  in  the  operations  of  animal  magnetism :  and  the 
report  of  the  French  physicians  upon  that  mysterious  remedy  is  very 
applicable  to  the  present  condition,  viz.  that  the  pretenders  to  the  art, 
by  working  upon  the  imaginations  of  their  patients,  were  frequently 
able  to  produce  convulsions ;  that  convulsions  so  produced,  are  amongst 
the  most  powerful,  but,  at  the  same  time,  most  uncertain  and  unman- 
ageable applications  to  the  human  frame  which  can  be  employed. 

"Circumstances  which  indicate  this  explication  in  the  case  of  the 
Parisian  miracles  are  the  following: 

1.  They  were  tentative.  Out  of  many  thousand  sick,  infirm,  and 
diseased  persons,  who  resorted  to  the  tomb,  the  professed  history  of  the 
miracles  contains  only  nine  cures. 

2.  The  convulsions  at  the  tomb  are  admitted. 

3.  The  diseases  were,  for  the  most  part,  of  that  sort  which  depends 
upon  inaction  and  obstruction,  as  dropsies,  palsies,  and  some  tumors. 

4.  The  cures  were  gradual;  some  patients  attending  many  days, 
some  several  weeks,  and  some  several  months. 

5.  The  cures  were  many  of  them  incomplete. 

6.  Others  were  temporary. 

"So  that  all  the  wonder  we  are  called  upon  to  account  for  is,  that 
out  of  an  almost  innumerable  multitude  which  resorted  to  the  tomb  for 
the  cure  of  their  complaints,  and  many  of  whom  were  there  agitated  by 
strong  convulsions,  a  very  small  proportion  experienced  a  beneficial 
change  in  their  constitution,  especially  in  the  action  of  the  nerves  and 
glands. 

"Some  of  the  cases  alleged  do  not  require  that  we  should  have 
recourse  to  this  solution.  The  first  case  in  the  catalogue  is  scarcely 
distinguishable  from  the  progress  of  a  natural  recovery.  It  was  that  of 
a  young  man  who  labored  under  an  inflammation  of  one  eye,  and  had 
lost  the  sight  of  the  other.     The  inflamed  eye  was  relieved,  but  the 


302  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


blindness  of  the  other  remained.  The  inflammation  had  before  been 
abated  by  medicine ;  and  the  young  man  at  the  time  of  his  attendance  at 
the  tomb,  was  using  a  lotion  of  laudanum.  And,  what  is  still  a  more 
material  part  of  the  case,  the  inflammation  after  some  interval  returned. 
Another  case  was  that  of  a  young  man  who  had  lost  his  sight  by  the 
puncture  of  an  awl,  and  the  discharge  of  the  aqueous  humor  through  the 
wound.  The  sight,  which  had  been  gradually  returning,  was  much 
improved  during  his  visit  to  the  tomb,  that  is,  probably,  in  the  same 
degree  in  which  the  discharged  humor  was  replaced  by  fresh  secretions. 
And  it  is  observable,  that  these  two  are  the  only  cases  which,  from  their 
nature,  should  seem  unlikely  to  be  affected  by  convulsions." 

But  the  most  discreditable  assertion  of  Paley's  remains. 

These,  let  us  remember,  are  the  strongest  examples,  which  the  history 
of  ages  supplies. 

To  White,  this  single  proposition  ought  to  have  stamped  Paley's 
book  with  irrevocable  condemnation.  So  far  from  being  the  strongest 
examples,  they  are  no  examples.  "We  have,  and  White  must  have  known 
it,  hundreds  of  splendid  examples  of  miracles,  whose  truth  is  supported 
by  incontestable  proofs,  and  we  reject  those  which  Hume  and  Paley 
adduce.  But  a  bold  assertion  is  not  always  the  worst  ally  in  a  bad 
cause. 

I  have  done  with  Paley,  and  must  resume  White. 

I  remain,  yours,  b.  c. 

LETTER  XL 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Nov.  13,  1826. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends — A  more  blundering  passage  of  obscure  phraseology 
seldom  came  under  my  view  than  that  in  which  ]Mr.  White  endeavors 
to  show  how  an  infidel  cannot  recognize  the  force  of  miraculous  evidence. 
It  is  the  following: 

"I  learnt  that  the  author  of  the  Natural  Theology  had  also  written 
a  work  on  the  Evidences  of  Christianity,  and  curiosity  led  me  to  read  it. 
His  arguments  appeared  to  me  very  strong;  but  I  found  an  intrinsic 
incredibility  in  the  facts  of  revealed  history,  which  no  general  evidence 
seemed  able  to  remove.  I  was  indeed  laboring  under  what  I  believe  to  be 
a  very  common  error  in  this  matter — an  error  which  I  have  not  been 
able  completely  to  correct,  vtdthout  a  very  long  study  of  the  subject  and 
myself.  I  expected  that  general  evidence  would  remove  the  natural 
inverisimilitude  of  miraculous   events:   that,   being   convinced   by   un- 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  303 

answerable  arguments  that  Christ  and  his  disciples  could  be  neither 
impostors  nor  enthusiasts,  and  that  the  narrative  of  their  ministry- 
is  genuine  and  true,  the  imagination  would  not  shrink  from  forms 
of  things  so  dissimilar  to  its  own  representations  of  real  objects, 
and  so  comformable  in  appearance  with  the  tricks  of  jugglers  and 
impostors.  Now  the  fact  is,  that  prohahly  and  likely,  though  used 
as  synonymous  in  common  language,  are  perfectly  distinct  in  phil- 
osophy. The  probable  is  that  for  the  reality  of  which  we  can  allege 
some  reason;  the  likely,  that  which  bears  in  its  face  a  semblance  or 
analogy  to  what  is  classed  in  our  minds  under  the  predicament  of  exis- 
tence. ^  This  association  is  made  early  in  life,  among  Christians,  in 
favor  of  the  miraculous  events  recorded  in  the  Holy  Scriptures;  and, 
if  not  broken  by  infidelity  in  after  life,  the  study  of  the  Gospel  evidence 
gives  those  events  a  character  of  reality  which  leaves  the  mind  satisfied 
and  at  rest;  because  it  finds  the  history  of  revealed  religion  not  only 
probable,  but  likely.  It  is  much  otherwise  with  a  man  who  rejects  the 
Gospel  for  a  considerable  period,  and  accustoms  his  mind  to  rank  the 
supernatural  works  recorded  by  Kevelation,  with  falsehood  and  impos- 
ture. LikeliJiood,  in  this  case,  becomes  the  strongest  ground  of  unbelief ; 
and  probability,  though  it  may  convince  the  understanding,  has  but 
little  influence  over  the  imagination. 

"A  sceptic  who  yields  to  the  powerful  proofs  of  Revelation,  will, 
for  a  long  time,  experience  a  most  painful  discordance  between  his  judg- 
ment and  the  associations  which  unbelief  has  produced.  When  most 
earnest  in  the  contemplation  of  Christian  truth,  when  endeavoring  to 
bring  home  its  comforts  to  the  heart,  the  imagination  will  suddenly 
revolt  and  cast  the  whole,  at  a  sweep,  among  the  rejected  notions.  This 
is,  indeed,  a  natural  consequence  of  infidelity,  which  mere  reasoning 
is  not  able  to  remove." 

Paley  meets  this  difficulty  in  his  Preparatory  Considerations;  yet  I 
think  he  is  here  somewhat  perplexed,  not  wielding  his  pen,  as  his  mind 
and  his  subject  would  allow.  I  am  aware  of  the  heavy  clog  which 
impeded  his  progress,  and  which  has  been  so  great  an  annoyance  to 
several  other  eminent  Protestant  writers.  They  saw  the  force  of  their 
principles,  but  they  feared  the  great  range  of  their  extent,  and  they 
endeavored  to  confine  them  arbitrarily  within  the  bounds  which  would 
suit  their  own  convenience,  and  to  prevent  their  progress  to  conclusions 
which  they  did  not  desire  to  admit.     For  instance  they  wished  to  estab- 


*  Likely  is  from  simile  vero,  like  the  truth.  Eendering  of  invraisemblable  by 
improbable  is  incorrect.  Want  of  vraisemblance  means  unlike  to  usual  course  of 
events. 


304  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

lish  Christianity  by  their  aid,  but  they  desired  not  to  establish  Catho- 
licism, and  if  they  gave  the  full  force  of  the  principle,  it  would  go  to 
the  establishment  of  the  truth  of  the  one,  as  well  as  the  other.  Paley 
says  of  Hume, 

**Mr.  Hume  states  the  cause  of  miracles  to  be  a  contest  of  opposite 
improbabilities,  that  is  to  say,  a  question  whether  it  be  more  improbable 
that  the  miracle  should  be  true,  or  the  testimony  false :  and  this  I  think 
a  fair  account  of  the  controversy." 

After  a  variety  of  observations  the  archdeacon  gives  the  following 
answer : 

"But  the  short  consideration  which,  independently  of  every  other, 
convinces  me  that  there  is  no  solid  foundation  in  Mr.  Hume's  conclu- 
sion, is  the  following : — When  a  theorem  is  proposed  to  a  mathematician, 
the  first  thing  he  does  with  it  is  to  try  it  upon  a  simple  case,  and  if  it 
produce  a  false  result,  he  is  sure  that  there  must  be  some  mistake  in  the 
demonstration.  Now  to  proceed' in  this  way  with  what  may  be  called 
Mr.  Hume's  theorem.  If  twelve  men,  whose  probity  and  good  sense 
I  had  long  known,  should  seriously  and  circumstantially  relate  to  me 
an  account  of  a  miracle  wrought  before  their  eyes,  and  in  which  it  was 
impossible  that  they  should  be  deceived :  if  the  governor  of  the  country 
hearing  a  rumor  of  this  account,  should  call  these  men  into  his  pres- 
ence, and  offer  them  a  short  proposal,  either  to  confess  the  imposture,  or 
submit  to  be  tied  up  to  a  gibbet,  if  they  should  refuse  with  one  voice  to 
acknowledge  that  there  existed  any  falsehood  or  imposture  in  the  case; 
if  this  threat  was  communicated  to  them  separately,  yet  with  no  differ- 
ent effect ;  if  it  was  at  last  executed ;  if  I  myself  saw  them,  one  after 
another,  consenting  to  be  racked,  burnt,  or  strangled,  rather  than  give 
up  the  truth  of  their  account ; — still  if  Mr.  Hume 's  rule  be  my  guide,  I 
am  not  to  believe  them.  Now  I  undertake  to  say  that  there  exists  not  a 
sceptic  in  the  world  who  would  not  believe  them,  or  who  would  defend 
such  incredulity. 

"Instances  of  spurious  miracles  supported  by  strong  apparent  tes- 
timony, undoubtedly  demand  examination ;  Mr.  Hume  has  endeavored  to 
fortify  his  argument  by  some  examples  of  this  kind.  I  hope  in  a 
proper  place  to  show  that  none  of  them  reach  the  strength  or  circum- 
stances of  the  Christian  evidence.  In  these,  however,  consists  the  weight 
of  his  objection:  in  the  principle  itself,  I  am  persuaded  that  there  is 
none. ' ' 

In  this  case  Dr.  Paley  requires  the  witness  of  the  fact  to  suffer 
death  before  he  will  believe  the  truth  of  the  fact;  because  the  circum- 
stance will  be  found  in  the  case  of  the  Apostles  and  first  martyrs  who 


•hvo  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO    WHITE  305 


testified  for  the  miracles  of  the  Saviour.  Their  submitting  to  death 
proves  one  of  two  things ;  either  that  they  were  firmly  convinced  of  the 
truth  of  the  fact  which  they  testified,  and  were  witnesses  of  extreme 
probity ;  or  else  that  they  were  most  hardened  and  incorrigible  impostors. 
So  that,  in  truth,  the  bare  submission  to  death  by  the  witnesses,  is  not 
the  criterion  of  the  correctness  of  their  testimony.  We  must  from  other 
considerations  be  satisfied  of  the  existence  of  the  two  essential  qualifica- 
tions of  evidence  by  testimony;  first,  "that  the  witnesses  could  not  have 
been,  themselves,  deceived;"  secondly,  "that  they  could  not  deceive  us; 
or  if  they  made  the  attempt,  that  they  would  have  been  inevitably 
detected."  The  putting  of  the  witnesses  to  death,  and  their  courageous 
submission  to  their  fate,  is  no  guarantee  to  us  that  they  had  not  been 
deceived;  and  although  this  circumstance  would  add  much  strength  to 
existing  proofs,  it  is  not  proof  of  truth  itself.  If  we  were  to  assert 
that  evidence  of  facts  could  not  be  had  without  the  death  of  the  witness, 
being  the  seal  of  its  sufficiency,  our  stock  of  knowledge  would  indeed  be 
small.  Paley  had  his  own  object  in  view  when  he  thus  circumscribed 
the  limits  of  evidence  for  miraculous  facts.  If  Mr.  White  ever  studied 
his  treatises  Of  Ethics  and  De  Religione,  in  Seville,  he  would  have  seen 
that  it  was  in  the  power  of  him  who  made  the  laws  of  nature  to  suspend 
any  one  of  them,  and  that  ordinary  evidence  would  have  been  sufficient 
to  prove  that  he  had  done  so.  Mr.  White  might  then  have  spared  his 
rigmarole  of  French  and  English  criticisms,  and  he  would  have  known 
that  the  exertion  of  God's  power  is  more  than  likely,  more  than  probable, 
for  it  is  evidently  true,  and  as  capable  of  being  proved,  as  any  usual 
occurrence.  For  instance,  that  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus  can  be  as 
well,  and  as  easily  proved  as  the  death  of  Julius  Caesar ;  that  there  exists 
as  fully  adequate  a  cause  for  the  resuscitation,  in  the  power  of  God, 
who  is  the  real  agent,  using  what  instrument  he  may  think  proper,  as 
of  the  death,  in  the  law  which  that  God  established  for  usual  and  ordi- 
nary cases.  Death  is  of  frequent  occurrence,  resuscitation  of  rare  occur- 
rence, but  a  fact  which  has  occurred  only  once  is  as  easily  proved  as 
one  which  is  frequently  repeated,  each  repetition  being  in  itself  a  full 
and  perfect  fact,  requiring  full  and  sufficient  proof.  Thus  we  need 
not  frequency  of  occurrence,  nor  the  death  of  the  witnesses,  to  prove  the 
truth  of  a  fact. 

Let  us  come  to  view  how  we  ascertain  the  fact  of  revelation.  If 
there  is  any  special  work  which  is  so  peculiarly  and  exclusively  that  of 
an  individual,  as  that  it  can  be  performed  by  no  other,  the  fact  of  the 
existence  of  that  work  establishes  the  fact  of  his  presence;  and  if  his 
presence  is  a  testimony  by  him  of  his  concurrence  in  declarations  then 


306  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

made,  he  is  responsible  for  the  truth  of  those  declarations.  We  believe 
miracles  to  be  works  above  the  power  of  created  beings,  and  requiring 
the  immediate  presence  and  agency  of  the  Divinity,  and  given  by  him 
as  the  proof  of  his  commission  to  the  individuals  or  societies  whom  ho 
makes  witnesses  to  men  of  truth  revealed  by  him.  The  feeling  of  the 
miracle  being  evidence  of  his  presence  for  this  purpose,  is  so  general, 
and  its  testimony  so  fully  given  by  the  human  race,  as  well  by  their 
spontaneous  declaration,  as  by  their  whole  course  of  conduct,  that  it 
would  argue  in  our  Creator  himself  a  total  disregard  for  man's  infor- 
mation, if  he  permitted  its  existence  during  so  many  centuries,  and  with 
such  inevitable  results,  unless  it  were  a  criterion  of  truth.  The  same 
consequences  would  necessarily  follow  from  a  permission,  on  the  part 
of  God,  of  a  general  delusion  of  mankind,  as  to  the  species  of  works  that 
are  miraculous.  When  the  feeling  generally  existed,  and  was  acted 
upon  most  extensively  during  a  long  series  of  ages,  that  works  of  a  pecu- 
liar description  were  emphatically  miracles,  and  that  the  performance 
of  those  miracles  was  an  undoubted  proof  of  God's  presence  to  uphold 
the  truth  of  declarations  made  in  his  name  by  the  agents  or  the  instru- 
ments used  in  these  works :  the  author  of  our  nature  would  be  chargable 
with  aiding  in  our  delusion,  if  he  did  not  as  he  could,  and  as  his  per- 
fections would  demand,  interfere  to  correct  the  error. 

Our  next  observations  must  regard  the  quantity  of  testimony  which 
would  be  required  to  prove  one  of  those  miraculous  facts.  The  assertion 
has  sometimes  been  made,  that  more  than  usually  would  suffice  for  estab- 
lishing an  ordinary  fact,  would  be  necessary  to  prove  the  existence  of 
a  miracle.  We  altogether  dissent  from  this  position.  The  facts  in  the 
one  case  are  precisely  as  obvious  to  examination  as  in  the  other.  Strange 
as  the  assertion  which  I  am  about  to  make,  will  probably  appear  to  many 
who  have  honored  me  with  their  attention ;  I  plainly  say,  that  it  will 
be  found  upon  reflection,  that  there  is  far  less  danger  of  deceit  or  mis- 
take in  the  examination  of  a  miraculous  fact,  than  there  is  in  one  of 
ordinary  occurrence.  The  reason  is  simple,  and  I  believe  natural  and 
evidently  sufficient.  The  mind  is  less  liable  to  be  imposed  upon,  when 
its  curiosity  is  greatly  excited,  and  when  its  jealousy  and  suspicion  are 
greatly  awakened,  than  when  it  is  prepared  to  expect  and  to  admit  what 
it  is  daily,  perhaps  hourly  in  the  habit  of  expecting  and  admitting. 
Ordinary  events  excite  no  curiosity,  create  no  surprise,  and  there  is  no 
difficulty  in  admitting,  that  what  has  frequently  occurred, 'occurs  again. 
The  statement  of  such  an  occurrence  will  easily  pass.  But  the  state  of 
the  mind  is  widely  different,  when  we  eagerly  seek  to  ascertain  whether 
what  has  never  been  witnessed  by  us  before,  has  now  come  under  our 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO   WHITE  307 


observation,  or  whether  we  have  not  been  under  some  delusion ;  whether 
an  attempt  has  not  been  made  to  deceive  us.  We,  in  such  a  case,  become 
extremely  jealous;  we  examine  with  more  than  ordinary  care,  and  we 
run  less  risk  of  being  deceived  or  mistaken. 

No  person  doubts  the  power  of  the  Creator,  the  supreme  legislator 
and  preserver  of  the  universe,  to  suspend  any  law  of  nature  in  the  course 
of  its  operation,  or  to  select  some  individual  case  which  he  will  except 
from  the  operation  of  that  law,  and  during  his  own  pleasure.  The  ques- 
tion can  never  be  as  to  this  power,  as  to  the  possibility  of  a  miraculous 
interference ;  but  it  always  must  regard  the  fact,  and  that  fact  must  be 
established  by  testimony,  and  without  the  evidence  of  testimony,  no 
person  who  was  not  present  can.  be  required  to  believe.  There  does 
not,  and  cannot  exist,  any  individual  or  tribunal,  with  power  to  require 
or  command  the  humblest  mortal  to  believe  without  evidence. 

There  is  no  place  in  which  the  rules  of  evidence  are  better  under- 
stood, or  more  accurately  observed,  than  in  our  respectable  courts  of 
law.  Permit  me  for  a  moment,  to  bring  your  attention  to  one  of  those 
cases  which  frequently  presents  itself  to  the  view  of  our  citizens.  There 
stands  a  citizen  charged  with  the  murder  of  his  fellow-man.  Long  ex- 
perience, deep  study,  unsullied  purity,  calm  impartiality,  and  patience 
for  investigation,  from  the  judicial  character ;  they  are  found  upon  the 
bench.  Steady  integrity,  the  power  of  discrimination,  the  love  of  jus- 
tice, a  deep  interest  in  the  welfare  of  the  community,  and  the  sanction 
of  a  solemn  pledge  to  heaven,  are  all  found  in  the  jury;  the  public  eye 
is  upon  them,  and  the  supreme  tribunal  of  public  opinion,  after  an  open 
hearing  of  the  case,  is  to  pronounce  upon  the  judges  and  jurors  them- 
selves. The  life  or  death,  the  fame  or  infamy  of  the  accused  lies  with 
them,  and  is  in  their  keeping,  at  the  peril  of  their  feelings,  their  char- 
acter, their  conscience  and  their  souls.  The  decision  must  be  made  by 
the  evidence  arising  from  testimony,  and  that  the  testimony  of  men,  and 
those  men  liable  to  all  the  weakness,  and  all  the  bad  passions  of  humanity. 
Yet  here,  in  this  important  ease,  a  solemn  decision  must  be  made.  That 
jury  must  be  satisfied,  that  the  person  now  said  to  be  dead  was  living, 
that  he  is  now  dead,  that  the  change  from  life  to  death  was  produced  by 
the  act  of  their  fellow-citizen  now  arraigned  before  them ;  that  this  act 
was  done  with  sufficient  deliberation  to  proceed  from  malacious  intent; 
that  for  this  act  he  had  no  authority ;  he  who  was  deprived  of  life  being 
a  peaceable  person  under  the  protection  of  the  State.  In  this  there  is 
frequently  much  perplexity,  and  little  testimony,  and  that  testimony 
frequently  regarding  not  the  substantial  ingredients  of  the  crime,  but 
establishing  facts  from  which  those  that  form  the  ingredients  are  only 


308  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

derived  by  inference.  Still  we  find  convictions  and  executions,  and  the 
jury  with  the  approbation  of  the  bench,  and  the  assent  of  the  community, 
unhesitatingly  put  on  solemn  record  their  conviction  of  the  truth  of 
facts  which  they  never  saw,  and  of  which  they  have  only  the  testimony 
of  their  fellow-men ;  and  upon  this  testimony  society  agrees  that  prop- 
erty, liberty,  life  and  fame  shall  all  be  disposed  of,  with  perfect  assur- 
ance of  truth  and  justice. 

I  will  now  suppose  that  court  constituted  as  I  have  described,  and 
for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  fact  of  murder.  A  number  of  respec- 
table witnesses  depose  to  the  fact  of  the  person  stated  to  have  been 
slain,  having  been  alive,  they  were  in  habits  of  intimacy  with  him,  were 
his  companions  during  years,  some  of  them  have  seen  his  dead  body, 
in  presence  of  others  who  also  testify  to  their  having  seen  and  examined 
that  body,  those  last  were  present  when  the  prisoner  with  perfect  delib- 
eration inflicted  a  wound  upon  the  deceased.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
as  to  the  identity  of  the  prisoner.  A  number  of  physicians  testify  their 
opinions  as  to  the  wound  so  given,  and  which  they  examined,  being  a 
sufficient  cause  of  death.  The  accused  produces  no  authority  for  his 
act;  there  has  been  no  process  of  law  against  the  deceased,  who  was  a 
peaceable  and  well  conducted  citizen.  How  could  that  jury  hesitate? 
They  must,  painful  as  is  the  task,  they  must  consign  the  unfortunate 
culprit  to  the  just  vengeance  of  the  law — the  judge  must  deliver  him  to 
the  executioner,  and  the  public  record  of  the  State  must  exhibit  his 
infamy.  Life  and  character  must  both  disappear,  they  are  swept  away 
by  the  irresistible  force  of  evidence,  founded  upon  human  testimony. 
The  widow  must  hang  her  head  in  shame ;  in  the  recess  of  her  dwelling 
she  must  sit  in  lonely,  disconsolate,  unsupported  grief;  the  orphans 
blush  to  bear  their  father's  name;  the  brothers  would  forget  their 
kindred :  and  perhaps  even  gray  hairs  would  gladly  bow  still  lower,  and 
compelled  by  grief  and  years,  court  the  concealment  of  the  grave. 

Yet,  still,  when  fact  becomes  evident  from  the  examination  of  tes- 
timony, we  must  yield  our  assent  to  that  fact  without  regarding  its 
consequences. 

Let  me  continue  my  supposition.  Before  the  dissolution  of  that 
court — whilst  it  is  yet  in  session,  that  jury  still  occupying  their  seats — 
a  rush  is  made  into  the  hall — the  same  identical  witnesses  appear  again ; 
but  they  are  accompanied  by  the  deceased — ^now  raised  to  life.  They 
testify,  that  as  they  were  departing  from  the  court,  a  man,  whom  they 
produce,  proclaimed  that  he  was  commissioned  by  the  Most  High  to 
deliver  his  great  behests  to  his  fellow-men ;  and  that  to  prove  the  validity 
of  his  commission,  he  summoned  them  to  accompany  him  to  the  tomb 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  309 

of  that  man  whose  death  they  had  so  fully  proved,  and  that  by  an 
appeal  to  heaven  for  the  authenticity  of  his  commission,  that  man  should 
revive.  They  went — they  saw  the  body  in  the  grave — the  claimant  upon 
heaven  called  upon  the  eternal  God  to  show  that  he  had  sent  him  to 
teach  his  fellow-men — he  calls  the  deceased — the  body  rises — the  dead 
has  come  to  life — he  accompanies  them  to  the  court — he  is  recognized 
by  his  acquaintances — confessed  by  his  friends — felt  by  the  people — he 
speaks,  he  breaths — he  moves,  he  eats,  he  drinks,  he  lives  amongst  them. 
Can  that  court  refuse  to  say  that  it  is  sa:tisfied  of  the  fact  of  the  resusci- 
tation? What  would  any  honest  man  think  of  the  members  of  that  jury, 
should  they  swear  that  this  man  had  not  been  resuscitated  by  the  inter- 
ference of  that  individual  who  thus  proves  his  commission?  If  that 
jury  could,  upon  the  testimony  of  those  witnesses,  find  the  first  fact, 
why  shall  they  not  upon  the  same  testimony  find  the  second? 

But  we  may  be  asked  how  we  know  that  this  man  was  dead?  Prob- 
ably it  was  only  a  mistake.  He  could  not  have  been  totally  bereft  of 
life.  Ask  the  jury,  who,  upon  the  certainty  of  the  fact  of  death,  con- 
signed their  fellow-citizen  to  infamy  and  to  the  gallows.  Shall  we  admit 
the  certainty  for  the  purpose  of  human  justice,  and  quibble  with  our 
convictions  to  exclude  the  testimony  of  heaven  ?  This,  indeed,  would  be 
a  miserable  sophistry.  Would  any  court  upon  such  a  plea,  so  unsup- 
ported, issue  a  respite  from  execution?  An  isolated  perhaps  with  noth- 
ing to  rest  upon,  set  up  against  positive  testimony,  resting  upon  the 
uncontradicted  evidence  derived  from  the  senses,  from  experience,  and 
from  analogy.  A  speculative  possibility  against  a  substantive  fact,  by 
which  fact  the  very  possibility  is  destroyed. 

Where  is  the  cause  of  doubt?  Where  the  difference  between  the 
two  cases?  In  both  suppositions  the  essential  facts  are  the  same, — 
life,  death, — identity;  the  difference  consists  in  the  accidental  circum- 
stance of  the  priority  of  one  to  the  other.  The  one  is  the  ordinary  tran- 
sition from  life  to  death,  an  occurrence  which  is  to  us  most  mysterious 
and  inexplicable,  but  with  the  existence  of  which  we  are  long  familiar ; 
the  other  a  transition  from  death  to  life,  not  more  mysterious  but  which 
rarely  occurs,  and  when  it  does  occur,  is  most  closely  examined,  viewed 
with  jealous  scrutiny,  and  excites  deep  interest ;  and  to  admit  the  truth 
of  which,  there  is  no  pre-disposition  in  the  mind.  The  facts  are  pre- 
cisely the  same  in  the  case  of  the  murder  and  of  the  miracle:  the  acci- 
dent of  the  priority  of  each  alternately  to  the  other,  constitutes  the 
whole  difference.  And  surely  if  witnesses  can  tell  me  that  a  man  who 
has  never  died  shews  all  the  symptoms  of  life,  the  same  witnesses  can 
tell  me  the  same  fact,  though  that  man  had  passed  from  death  to  life. 


310  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

The  symptoms  of  life  are  always  the  same,  and  the  testimony  which  will 
establish  the  fact  of  life  at  one  time,  by  proving  the  existence  of  those 
symptoms,  will  be  at  any  time  sufficient  for  the  same  purpose.  The 
same  is  to  be  said  of  the  symptoms  of  death,  and  of  the  testimony  Avhich 
will  establish  the  fact  by  proving  their  existence.  It  may  be  objected 
that  no  adequate  cause  is  assigned  for  this  extraordinary  occurrence. 
The  answer  is  two-fold.  To  be  convinced  of  the  truth  of  a  fact,  it  is  not 
necessary  that  I  should  know  the  cause  of  its  existence,  it  suffices  for 
me  to  know  the  existence  of  the  fact  itself:  and  its  existence  will  not 
be  the  less  certain,  though  I  should  never  be  able  to  discover  the  cause. 
How  many  facts  do  we  every  day  witness,  whose  causes  are  still  to  us 
inaccessible  and  undiscovered.  Next — an  adequate  cause  is  here  dis- 
tinctly pointed  out  and  referred  to.  He  who  first  breathed  into  the 
nostrils  of  man,  whom  he  fashioned  from  the  dust,  a  living  soul,  is  now 
equally  powerful  to  call  back  the  departed  spirit  to  its  mouldering  tene- 
ment of  clay. 

Viewed  in  this  w^ay,  which  is  the  fair  and  proper  mode  of  consid- 
ering the  subject,  the  whole  difficulty  vanishes :  because  it  is  as  easy  for 
God  to  produce  an  effect  by  the  immediate  intervention  of  his  power, 
as  tkrough  the  mediation  of  the  laws  which  he  has  established  to  regulate 
the  ordinary  course  of  events.  The  facts  in  the  one  case  are  as  obvious, 
and  as  easily  examined  as  in  the  other  case :  the  truth  of  the  facts  being 
established,  and  their  miraculous  nature  being  evident;  all  the  jargon 
which  White  wrote  might  be  dispensed  with,  and  all  the  quibbles  of 
Hume  are  puerile.  The  broad  evident  fact  stares  us  in  the  face;  but 
there  is  a  race  of  weak  and  superficial  beings,  who  always  seek  to  evade 
the  admission  of  a  principle  or  of  a  fact  which  might  possibly  interfere 
with  their  wishes,  and  those  persons  most  unreasonably  deny  reason 
itself,  when  it  stands  in  their  way,  and  seek  for  any  asylum  in  the  untin- 
telligible  world  of  delusive  sounds,  such  as  the  specimen  which  I  have 
selected  from  White. 

I  remain,  yours,  b.  c. 

LETTER  XII. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Nov.  20,  1826. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends — I  now  proceed  to  examine  the  assertions  of  Mr.  White, 
as  to  his  motives  for  becoming  a  Protestant  of  the  English  Church. 
Hitherto,  I  have  confined  myself  to  showing  that,  if  he  took  up  Paley's 
principle,  and  the  facts  which  White  must  have  known  to  be  true,  he 


-two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO    WHITE  311 

must  necessarily  have  become  a  Roman  Catholic;  and,  farther,  that 
Paley  himself  could  not  by  his  own  principles  escape  the  conclusion, 
that  Catholicism  is  the  revelation  of  God,  except  bj^  denying  what  White 
knew  to  be  true,  and  by  asserting  that  which  White  must  have  known 
to  be  false ;  and,  besides,  that  by  attempting  to  avoid  these  conclusions, 
White  and  most  Protestant  writers  become  so  confusedly  bewildered, 
in  treating  of  the  doctrine  of  miracles,  that  they  are  scarcely  intelligible 
upon  this  momentous  subject.  Let  us  now  hear  Mr.  White's  reasons,  as 
given  before,  in  the  passage  quoted  in  my  seventh  letter. 

He  tells  us  that,  after  having  read  Paley,  he  prayed  regularly  for 
divine  aid,  because  "nothing  but  humble  prayer  can  indeed  obtain  that 
faith,  which,  when  reason  and  judgment  have  lead  us  to  supernatural 
truth,  gives  to  unseen  things  the  body  and  substance  of  reality,"  page 
29.  It  is  a  little  extraordinary  that  the  old  objection  which  he  mentions 
in  Dohlado's  Letters,  page  297,  should  not  have  again  risen  to  his  mind. 
There  he  judged  that  because  one  absurdity,  as  he  called  the  doctrine  of 
hell,  presented  itself,  it  would  be  folly  to  pray ;  and  instead  of  praying, 
and  reading  works  in  favor  of  revelation,  he  neglected  his  prayers, 
because  they  were  a  burthen,  and  were  unmeaning,  and  he  read  with 
avidity  every  work  against  revelation.  Indeed,  his  prayer  was  no  great 
task;  for,  instead  of  two  hours  which  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  re- 
quired, the  Lord's  prayer,  which  might  be  dispatched  in  two  minutes, 
sufficed.  If,  then,  faith  could  be  had  at  so  easy  a  rate,  for  so  short  a 
prayer,  he  must  have  been  grossly  negligent  of  the  great  duty  of  prayer 
in  Spain,  when  he  lost  faith  through  neglect.  Yet  this  neglect  was  not 
enjoined  by  his  Church,  so  that  he  is  to  attribute  the  loss  of  belief  to 
his  disobeying  the  lay  of  that  Romish  Church  which  enjoined  the  duty 
of  prayer. 

How  convenient  is  it  to  take  up  occasionally  the  semblance  of  vir- 
tue, when  it  serves  our  purpose,  and  to  sneer  at  the  reality  of  virtue  in 
others?  This  romance, — for  I  will  now  call  it  what  I  have  shown  it 
to  be, — exhibits  White  as  being  unable  to  attain  faith  without  prayer, 
even  after  he  had  been  convinced  by  argument;  that  a  reply  might  be 
afforded  to  the  persons  who  say  that  they  cannot  be  Christians,  though 
they  cannot  argue  against  Christianity;  but  let  a  Catholic  assert,  that 
you  should  pray  to  God  to  aid  you  by  giving  you  faith,  how  quickly 
should  we  be  assailed  with  every  epithet  which  supercilious  arrogance 
could  bestow?  Ignorance,  folly,  priestcraft,  hood- winking,  stupidity, 
and  such  expressions  would  embroider  the  body  of  the  sentences,  which 
would  be  exhibited  to  an  admiring  public. 

Let  us .  remember,  then,  that  Mr.  White  acknowledged  faith  to  be 


312  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

a  gift  of  God,  for  the  obtaining  of  which  it  is  necessary  to  pray.  This 
will  yet  stand  us  in  some  stead.  He  continued  this  practice  of  repeating 
the  Lord's  prayer,  once  every  morning,  during  three  years;  his  persua- 
sion, that  Christianity  "was  not  one  and  the  same  thing  with  the  Roman 
Catholic  religion,  growing  stronger  all  the  while,"  page  30.  Will  Mr. 
White  expect  us  to  believe  that  each  succeeding  prayer  obtained  for  him 
new  light  ?  This  new  light  must  have  exhibited  truth  better  to  his  mind. 
If  Paley  's  argument  was  good,  and  led  to  truth.  White  fell  into  error ; 
because  Paley 's  book,  as  soon  as  its  falsehoods  are  struck  out,  fully  estab- 
lishes the  conclusion,  that  Christianity  and  the  Roman  Catholic  religion 
are  one  and  the  same  thing.  To  what,  then,  are  we  to  attribute  Mr. 
White 's  assertion  ?  My  own  impression  is,  that  his  statement  of  the  fact 
is  untrue. 

This  is  a  very  strong  assertion,  but  I  shall  endeavor  to  maintain  its 
correctness.  My  opinion  is,  that  this  man  did  not  believe  in  the  truth 
of  Christianity,  or  if  he  did,  that  he  must  have  known  the  truth  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church ;  my  opinion  is,  that  he  was  not  then  a  Christian. 
My  first  reason  for  this  opinion  is,  that  Mr.  White  is  an  unsafe  and 
insufficient  witness,  and  we  have  only  his  authority  for  the  statement. 
My  second  reason  is,  that  the  fact  is  most  improbable ;  and  I  cannot  be 
asked  to  believe  an  improbability,  without  positive  evidence  sufficient  to 
establish  the  fact,  and  here  I  have  none.  My  third  reason  is,  that  I 
find,  as  I  shall  show  hereafter,  from  several  passages  of  White's  pro- 
duction, that  it  is  impossible  he  could  have  been  what  he  professed  to  be. 

He  next  tells  us,  "that  his  rejection  of  revealed  religion  had  been 
the  effect  not  of  direct  objection  to  its  evidences,  but  of  weighing  tenets 
against  them,  which  they  were  not  intended  to  support,"  page  30. 
Yet  he  told  us  in  page  21,  that  his  doubts  did  not  affect  any  particular 
doctrine,  "but  his  first  doubts  attacked  the  very  basis  of  Catholicism." 
One  of  those  assertions  must  be  untrue.  It  is  not  for  me  to  decide  which 
is  the  falsehood.  But  it  is  for  me  to  say,  that  it  is  now  manifest,  that 
this  witness  is  entitled  to  no  credit. 

He  proceeds  to  inform  us,  "the  balance  inclined  in  favor  of  the 
truth  of  the  Gospel  in  proportion  as  he  struck  out  dogmas  which  he  had 
been  taught  to  identify  with  the  doctrine  of  Christ."  He  does  not  in- 
form us  what  those  doctrines  were;  but  in  DoUado's  Letters,  as  I  showed 
before,  he  stated  the  first  which  he  found  to  be  at  variance  with  the  good- 
ness of  God,  and  which  being  a  doctrine  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church, 
he  had  been  taught  to  identify  with  the  doctrines  of  Christ,  was  that 
of  the  existence  of  hell ;  of  course  we  must  presume  that  he  struck  out 
this,  as  it  was  the  absurdity  which  caused  his  rejection  of  Christianity. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  313 


If,  then,  he  struck  this  out,  he  certainly  was  not  approximating  to 
Chi-istianity.  Thus  it  is  very  improbable  that  he  became  a  Christian. 
To  this  paragraph,  he  appends  the  following  note,  page  30 : 
''Paley,  with  his  usual  penetration,  has  pointed  out  this  most  im- 
portant result  of  the  Reformation :  '  When  the  doctrine  of  Transubstan- 
tiation  (he  says  in  his  address  to  Dr.  Law,  Bishop  of  Carlisle,  prefixed 
to  the  Principles  of  Moral  Philosoplnj)  had  taken  possession  of  the 
Christian  world,  it  was  not  without  the  industry  of  learned  men  that  it 
came  at  length  to  be  discovered,  that  no  such  doctrine  was  contained 
in  the  New  Testament.  But  had  those  excellent  persons  done  nothing 
more  by  their  discovery  than  abolish  an  innocent  superstition,  or  change 
some  directions  in  the  ceremonial  of  public  worship,  they  had  merited 
little  of  that  veneration  with  which  the  gratitude  of  Protestant  Churches 
remembers  their  services.  What  they  did  for  mankind  was  this — "They 
exonerated  Christianity  of  a  weight  that  sunk  it.'  " 

Respecting  the  note,  I  shall  at  present  briefly  remark,  that  tran- 
substantiation  was  in  possession  of  the  Christian  world,  during  all  the 
ages  which  had  elapsed  from  the  establishment  of  Christianity  to  the 
period  when  this  industry  was  so  applied ;  and  the  opinion  which  was  the 
result  of  the  industry,  was  set  up  to  destroy  the  fact,  which  was  upheld 
by  every  species  of  testimonial  evidence.  Some  persons  thought  this 
doctrine  a  load,  which  sunk  Christianity,  and  caused  several  to  reject 
the  system,  because  of  this  tenet,  which  they  would  not  believe.  The 
Reformers,  as  they  call  themselves,  took  off  the  load.  Did  they  thereby 
increase  the  number  of  the  faithful?  The  remark  is  worth  just  as  much 
as  the  similar  one  used  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Whitaker,  in  a  sermon  preached 
in  this  city,  not  long  since,  which  is  substantially:  "That  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  was  a  load  which  sunk  Christianity;  and  the  requisition 
of  belief  in  this  absurdity,  which  industrious  scholars  found  not  to  be 
contained  in  the  New  Testament,  prevented  thousands  from  embracing 
Christianity;  but  the  Unitarians  exonerated  Christianity  of  a  weight 
that  sunk  it. ' '  Another  time,  and  I  shall  take  up  the  doctrine  in  another 
manner ;  at  present,  its  value  may  be  estimated  by  comparison. 

A  little  afterwards,  Mr.  White  says,  page  31:  "The  points  of  dif- 
ference between  the  Church  of  England  and  Rome,  though  important, 
are  comparatively  few;  they  were  besides  the  very  points  which  had 
produced  his  general  belief."  Really,  I  was  of  a  different  opinion;  for, 
until  I  have  been  thus  instructed  by  the  Rev.  Joseph  Blanco  White,  a 
Clergyman  of  the  Church  of  England,  I  was  under  the  full  impression 
that  the  Church  of  England  taught  the  existence  of  hell.  Mr.  White 
imforms  us,  in  Dohlado's  Letters,  that  this  doctrine  was  the  first  which 


314  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

produced  his  general  unbelief.  I  knew  that  the  American  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  was  somewhat  delicate  upon  this  doctrine,  for  the 
clergymen  were,  and  for  aught  I  know  still  are,  at  liberty  to  put  or  not 
to  put  into  the  Apostles'  Creed,  the  phrase,  "he  descended  into  hell;" 
but  I  never  suspected  the  Church  of  England  upon  this,  topic,  until  I 
read  Mr.  White's  statement.  This  doctrine,  Doblado  says,  drove  him 
from  the  Catholic  Church;  and  White  tells  us,  page  31,  "When  approach- 
ing the  Church  of  England,  both  the  absence  of  what  drove  me  from 
Catholicism,  and  the  existence  of  the  other  parts  of  the  system,  made  me 
feel  as  if  I  were  returning  to  the  repaired  home  of  my  youth. 

But  the  most  extraordinary  passage  in  the  entire  of  Mr.  White's 
book,  is  that  in  which  he  in  page  30,  states,  that  "the  day  arrived,  when 
convinced  of  the  substantial  truth  of  Christianity,  no  question  remained 
before  him  but  that  of  choosing  the  form  under  which  he  was  to  profess 
it."  To  our  American  friends,  who  have  been  so  long  in  the  habit  of 
taking  their  peculiar  views  of  the  subject,  this  will  appear  the  most 
natural  state  of  mind.  But  in  such  a  man  as  White,  it  is  a  state  which 
does  not  correspond  with  nature.  I  must  be  a  little  more  tedious  than 
I  would  wish  upon  this  topic. 

In  order  to  understand  properly  the  case  which  we  examine,  we 
must  again  stop  to  inquire  what  Christianity  is.  It  is  the  religion  es- 
tablished by  Christ.  Religion  consists  in  the  belief  of  certain  doctrines 
whose  truth  has  been  revealed  by  God,  and  in  the  discharge  of  certain 
duties  prescribed  by  him;  the  belief  is  called  faith;  the  practice  of 
duties  consists  in  fulfilling  moral  obligations,  and  performing  ritual  ser- 
vice, or  being  engaged  therein.  Thus  the  Christian  religion  consists 
in  believing  the  doctrines  taught  by  Christ,  fulfilling  the  moral  pre- 
cepts of  his  law,  and  being  properly  engaged  in  the  ritual  service  which 
he  established. 

A  code  of  doctrine  is  some  collection  of  known  and  ascertained 
dogmas  or  tenets,  specially  given,  and  which  is  comprised  in  a  written 
or  printed  book,  and  it  cannot  be  of  any  practical  utility  unless  it  is 
so  plain  as  to  be  fully  and  easily  intelligible,  or  unless  some  known  and 
authorized  tribunal  shall  be  established  to  give  its  precise  meaning  upon 
all  necessary  points  and  occasions. 

It  is  like  the  statutes  of  a  nation,  which  however  plainly  they  may 
be  written,  and  however  perspicuously  they  may  be  constructed,  and 
however  judiciously  they  may  be  compiled,  still  are  liable  to  be  mis- 
taken; and  hence  every  nation  constitutes  a  judicial  tribunal,  to  give 
their  precise  meaning  in  all  eases  of  doubt :  so  for  the  purpose  of  ascer- 
taining the  principles  of  morality  in  the  Christian  law,  and  their  ap- 


two  CALUMNIES   OF  J.   BLANCO   WHITE  315 


plication  to  special  cases,  a  tribunal  is  as  necessary  as  it  is  to  ascer- 
tain the  principles  of  law,  and  to  apply  the  provisions  to  special  cases: 
and  rites  must  be  ascertained  and  regulated  in  like  manner.  If  no 
such  tribunal  existed,  every  man  would  hold  his  own  opinion  respect- 
ing doctrine,  and  we  would  behold  those  opinions  perpetually  in  con- 
tradiction to  each  other.  If  Christ  gave  the  doctrine  of  God,  he  gave 
a  doctrine  which  was  true,  uniform,  consistent  with  itself,  and  not 
a  mass  of  contradictions.  I  cannot  therefore  call  all  those  contra- 
dictions truth.  Thus  a  man  cannot  say  he  is  convinced  of  the  truth 
of  Christianity  until  he  knows  what  Christianity  is,  and  he  cannot 
know  what  Christianity  is,  before  he  knows  either  what  are  the  doctrines 
which  Christ  taught,  or  what  is  the  tribunal  from  which  he  will  receive 
them :  he  must  also  know  the  moral  law  of  Christ,  or  the  tribunal  from 
which  he  can  learn  it,  and  the  ritual  institutions  of  Christ,  or  the  trib- 
unal from  which  he  will  learn  them ;  or  else  he  cannot  be  convinced  of 
the  substantial  truth  of  Christianity.  If  Mr.  White  knew  the  tribunal, 
his  examination  as  to  the  form  under  which  he  should  profess  Christian- 
ity must  have  been  closed ;  because  he  knew  the  form  established  by  that 
tribunal.  If  he  knew  the  doctrine,  and  the  moral  and  ritual  disipline, 
his  examination  must  also  have  been  closed;  for  he  knew  the  form 
when  he  knew  those  parts  which  composed  it. 

Let  us  however  try  if  we  can  find  Mr.  White's  meaning.  Suppose 
he  meant  to  say  that  he  was  convinced  Christ  has  established  a  religion 
of  truth,  which  all  men  ought  to  profess :  that  seeing  so  many  sects  con- 
tradicting each  other,  he  knew  they  could  not  be  all  teaching  the  true 
doctrine  of  the  Saviour,  and  he  therefore  was  at  a  loss  to  know  which 
he  ought  to  embrace.  If  he  calls  this  being  convinced  of  the  substantial 
truth  of  Christianity,  he  certainly  has  made  an  extraordinary  assertion 
when  he  states :  "No  question  remained  before  him  but  that  of  choosing 
the  form  under  which  he  was  to  profess  it.  The  deliberation  which 
preceded  this  choice  was  one  of  no  great  difficulty  to  him."  You  will 
agree  vnth  me,  unless  he  found  some  authorized  tribunal  to  aid  in  fixing 
his  knowledge  of  the  doctrines  and  the  institutions  of  the  Saviour,  there 
lay  before  him  a  task  sufficient  to  occupy  nearly  his  whole  life ;  because 
he  should  leave  no  one  of  those  forms  or  sects  unexamined,  lest  that  which 
he  omitted  might  be  the  very  one  which  he  should  choose :  next  he  ought 
himself  to  know  accurately  all  the  doctrines  and  institutions  of  the 
Saviour,  that  he  might  be  able  to  discover  which  sect  held  those  doctrines, 
and  which  deviated  from  them.  If  he  had  this  accurate  knowledge,  his 
labor  indeed  would  have  been  at  an  end.  It  is  plain  therefore,  that  there 
are  only  three  modes,  for  discovering  the  doctrines  of  Christ:  first,  to 


316  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

find  some  infallible  witness  which  shall  tell  us  with  certainty  which  they 
are;  this  is  our  mode,  and  was  rejected  by  Mr.  White,  who  left  our 
communion ;  the  second  is  by  inspiration ;  to  this  mode  Mr.  White  lays 
no  claim ;  the  third  is  by  learning  the  doctrines  in  detail  from  an  exten- 
sive and  laborious  investigation.  Mr.  White  says  of  the  English  Church 
and  the  Roman  Catholic,  "that  the  doctrines  common  to  both  Churches 
were  found  in  the  Scriptures,  his  early  studies  and  professional  knowl- 
edge left  him  no  room  to  doubt."  It  is  very  strange  that  there  is 
scarcely  one  true  proposition  of  three  in  his  doctrinal  assertions,  and 
still  more  strange,  that  he  contradicts  almost  one-third  of  his  o^vn  doc- 
trinal statements.  It  is  by  no  means  true,  that  all  the  doctrines  con- 
tained in  the  English  Protestant  creed  are  found  in  the  Scriptures; 
many  of  those  which  the  Church  of  England  holds  in  common  with  us 
are  known  only  from  tradition;  I  might  easily  sum  up  several,  I  shall 
mention  two  or  three  of  the  first  which  strike  me,  viz.  the  validity  of 
infant  baptism,  the  perpetual  virginity  of  the  Blessed  Virgin,  the  valid- 
ity of  baptism  conferred  by  lay-persons,  or  by  infidels,  the  validity  of 
orders  conferred  by  heretics,  and  a  vast  number  of  others.  Again,  both 
Churches  believe  in  the  existence  of  hell  or  a  place  of  eternal  punishment. 
Mr.  White  wrote  Dohlado's  Letters  after  the  period  of  his  becoming  a 
member  of  the  Protestant  Church — ^both  Churches  state  that  they  find 
this  doctrine  in  the  Scriptures,  and  White  rejects  it. 

"Suppose,  however,  the  reality  and  magnitude  of  the  recompense — 
am  I  not  daily  in  danger  of  eternal  perdition?  My  heart  sinks  within 
me  at  the  view  of  the  interminable  list  of  offenses,  every  one  of  which 
may  finally  plunge  me  into  everlasting  flames.  Everlasting !  and  why  so  ? 
Can  there  be  revenge  or  cruelty  in  the  Almighty?" 

Against  this  he  struggled,  this  he  called  absurdity,  and  as  the  Cath- 
olic Church  had  a  faith  which  was  invisible,  whatever  proved  it  all, 
proved  absurdity; — therefore  he  left  Catholic  faith,  because  of  the  doe- 
trine  of  health;  page  297,  DoUado's  Letters.  Yet  he  tells  us,  Evidence, 
page  30 : 

"The  deliberation  which  preceded  this  choice  was  one  of  no  great 
difficulty  to  me.  The  points  of  difference  between  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land and  Rome,  though  important,  are  comparatively  few:  they  were, 
besides,  the  very  points  which  had  produced  my  general  unbelief.  That 
the  common  doctrines  to  both  Churches  were  found  in  the  Scriptures, 
my  early  studies  and  professional  knowledge,  left  me  no  room  to  doubt ; 
and  as  the  evidences  of  Revelation  had  brought  me  to  acknowledge  the 
authority  of  the  Scriptures,  I  could  find  no  objection  to  the  resumption 
of  tenets  which  had  so  long  possessed  my  belief.     The  communion  in 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  317 


which  I  was  inclined  to  procure  admission  was  not,  indeed,  that  in  which 
I  was  educated ;  but  I  had  so  long  wandered  away  from  the  Roman  fold, 
that,  when  approaching  the  Church  of  England,  both  the  absence  of  what 
had  driven  me  from  Catholicism,  and  the  existence  of  all  the  other 
parts  of  that  system,  made  me  feel  as  if  I  were  returning  to  the  repaired 
home  of  my  youth. ' ' 

My  friends,  why  would  not  the  variegated  host  of  Doctors,  from 
Bishop  Kemp  to  the  most  humble  of  those  who  follow  in  his  train,  mem- 
bers as  well  of  the  Church  which  he  deserted  as  of  that  into  which  he 
climbed,  vouchsafe  to  tell  us  whether  they  believe  in  the  existence  of  a 
place  of  eternal  punismment?  What  say  they  to  Mr.  White  upon  this 
subject,  or  wall  the  Doctors  hold  a  consultation  upon  his  contradictions  ? 
Indeed,  his  disease  in  this  regard  has  already  assumed  a  desperate  char- 
acter, and  yet  all  the  symptoms  have  not  been  developed. 

What  will  they  say  to  the  passages  in  the  very  next  page  to  that 
in  which  he  informs  us  with  such  pathos  of  his  return  to  a  Church  so 
like  his  own,  "the  repaired  home  of  his  youth."  For  he  tells  us  in  page 
31,  that  he  had  no  "secret  leaning"  to  the  Church  that  he  had  left,  "for 
Catholicism  was  blended  with  his  bitterest  recollections."  This  to  me 
appears  more  like  the  thoughtless  rhapsody  of  some  fanciful  laureate 
elated  by  the  influence  of  his  pipe  of  port,  than  like  the  sober  statement 
of  an  humble  convert  declaring  before  God  and  man  the  plain  facts  of 
an  interesting  occurrence.  Did  the  associated  Doctors  calmly  read  this 
tissue  of  contradiction,  before  they  gave  their  names  to  the  scrutiny  of 
a  patient,  investigating  and  intelligent  people?  Did  they  before  God 
in  singleness  of  soul  believe  that  Mr.  White's  book  was  an  honest  rela- 
tion of  truth,  given  by  a  religious  man?  If  they  did,  I  could  not  respect 
their  powers  of  criticism,  or  their  information.  If  they  did  not,  what 
am  I  to  say?  Shall  I  believe  that  their  prejudice  against  our  religion 
urged  them  to  assail  us  even  with  such  a  compilation.  I  regret  their 
act,  not  for  any  injury  to  our  Church,  because,  it  has  done  us  service; 
but  I  regret  that  our  country  affords  such  an  exhibition.  I  shall  con- 
tinue. 

I  remain  yours,  b.  c. 

LETTER  XIII. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Nov.  27,  1826. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends, — We  have  now  brought  Mr.  White,  through  a  series 
of  improbablities  and  contradictions,  to  be  a  good  Protestant  of  the 


318  CONTEOVEESY  Vol. 


Church  of  England;  whose  doctrines  he  subscribed  in  the  year  1814, 
having  been  led  thereto  by  Paley  and  by  prayer.  He  then  after  a  period 
of  a  year  and  a  half  resumed  his  priestly  character,  which  by  the  bye 
he  had  never  thrown  off,  though  he  had  frequently  disgraced  it.  The 
Church  of  England  as  well  as  the  Catholic  Church  teaches  the  inamissi- 
bility  of  this  character,  which  is  another  doctrine  not  found  in  the  New 
Testament,  in  which  they  agree.  I  shall  only  remark  that  White  as 
a  convert,  was  by  the  English  law  required  to  swear  a  few  oaths,  be- 
sides subscribing  the  articles,  and  I  shall  on  future  occasions,  have  to 
advert  to  this,  for  the  purpose  of  shewing  that  his  own  works  shew  him, 
even  at  the  date  of  last  year,  to  hold  tenets  incompatible  with  this  oath 
and  with  those  articles. 

He  next  informs  us  that  at  Oxford  he  spent  two  years  as  tutor  to 
the  son  of  a  nobleman.  This  was  after  he  had  ' '  returned  to  the  repaired 
home  of  his  youth,"  subsequently  to  his  ** deliberation,  which  was  not 
one  of  great  difficulty  to  him,"  for  the  purpose  "of  choosing  the  form 
under  which  he  w^as  to  profess  that  Christianity  of  whose  substantial 
truth  he  was  convinced,"  after  he  had  "no  room  to  doubt"  of  the  truth 
of  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  of  England,  the  truth  of  which  he  had 
solemnly  subscribed  to  and  confirmed  with  his  oath.  All  inquiry  we 
must  suppose  was  now  at  an  end,  the  religion  he  had  embraced  he  had  no 
doubt  was  that  which  Christ  revealed,  and  which  was  contained  in  the 
laws  of  the  Gospel,  and  to  observe  which  he  made  ' '  a  solemn  engagement 
by  receiving  the  sacrament"  in  that  Church,  [after  which,]  "to  com- 
plete such  acknowledgment  he  resumed  his  priestly  character."  This 
man  has  therefore  now  rest  in  his  faith,  he  has  the  undoubted  convic- 
tion that  all  that  to  which  he  has  pledged  his  signature,  his  oath,  the 
sacrament,  and  his  priestly  character,  is  true.  Alas !  my  friends,  we  now 
begin  to  find  the  correct  manifestation  of  what  all  this  is  worth !  Hqw 
valueless  are  all  those  pledges  and  professions !  !  Mr.  White  as  yet  has 
not  faith !  As  yet  he  knows  not  what  has  been  revealed !  !  !  So  he  in- 
forms us  himself  in  pages  33  of  his  Evidence. 

"Neither  the  duties  of  the  tutorship,  nor  the  continual  sufferings 
which  I  have  endured  ever  since,  could  damp  my  eagerness  in  search  of 
religious  truth.  Shall  I  be  suspected  of  cant  in  this  declaration  ?  Alas ! 
let  the  confession  which  I  am  going  to  make,  be  the  unquestionable, 
though  melancholy  proof  of  my  sincerity. 

"For  more  than  three  years  my  studies  in  divinity  were  to  me  a 
source  of  increasing  attachment  to  Christian  faith  and  practice.  When 
I  quitted  my  charge  as  tutor,  I  had  begun  a  series  of  short  lectures  on 
religion,  the  first  part  of  which  I  delivered  to  the  young  members  of  the 


t^vo  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO    WHITE  319 

family.  Having  retired  to  private  lodgings  in  London,  it  was  my  inten- 
tion to  prosecute  that  work  for  the  benefit  of  the  young  persons;  but 
there  was  by  this  time  a  mental  phenomenon  ready  to  appear  in  me,  to 
which  I  cannot  now  look  back  without  a  strong  sense  of  my  own  weak- 
ness. My  vehement  desire  of  knowledge  not  allowing  me  to  neglect 
any  opportunity  of  reading  whatever  books  on  divinity  came  to  my  hands, 
I  studied  the  small  book  on  The  Atonement,  by  Taylor  of  Norwich.  The 
confirmed  habits  of  my  mind  were  too  much  in  accordance  with  every- 
thing that  promised  to  remove  mystery  from  Christianity,  and  I  adopted 
Taylor's  views  without  in  the  least  suspecting  the  consequences.  It  was 
not  long,  however,  before  I  found  myself  beset  with  great  doubts  on  the 
divinity  of  Christ.  My  state  now  became  exceedingly  painful;  for, 
though  greatly  wanting  religious  comfort  in  the  solitude  of  a  sick  room, 
I  was  a  prey  to  pain  and  extreme  weakness,  I  perceived  that  religious 
practices  had  lost  their  power  of  soothing  me.  But  no  danger  or  suffer- 
ing has,  in  the  course  of  my  life,  deterred  me  from  the  pursuit  of  truth. 
Having  now  suspected  that  it  might  be  found  in  the  Unitarian  system, 
I  boldly  set  out  upon  the  search ;  but  there  I  did  not  find  it.  Whatever 
industry  and  attention  could  do,  all  was  performed  with  candor  and 
earnestness ;  but,  in  length  of  time,  Christianity,  in  the  light  of  Unitar- 
ianism,  appeared  to  me  a  mighty  work  to  little  purpose ;  and  I  lost  all 
hope  of  quieting  my  mind.  With  doubts  unsatisfied  wherever  I  turned, 
I  found  myself  rapidly  sliding  into  the  gulf  of  scepticism ;  but  it  pleased 
God  to  prevent  my  complete  relapse.  I  knew  too  well  the  map  of  infidel- 
ity to  be  deluded  a  second  time  by  the  hope  of  finding  a  resting  place 
to  the  sole  of  my  foot,  throughout  its  wide  domains;  and  now  I  took 
and  kept  a  determination  to  give  my  mind  some  rest,  from  the  studies, 
which,  owing  to  my  peculiar  circumstances  had  evidently  occasioned 
the  moral  fever  under  which  I  labored.  What  was  the  real  state  of  my 
faith  in  this  period  of  darkness,  God  alone  can  judge.  This  only  can 
I  state  with  confidence, — that  I  prayed  daily  for  light ;  that  I  invariably 
considered  myself  bound  to  obey  the  precepts  of  the  Gospel;  and  that, 
when  harassed  with  fresh  doubts,  and  tempted  to  turn  away  from  Christ, 
I  often  repeated  from  my  heart  the  affecting  exclamation  of  the  Apostle 
Peter — "to  whom  shall  I  go?  thou  hast  the  words  of  eternal  life." 

After  reading  this  extract  I  would  ask  whether  this  good  man  had 
not  as  much  reason  for  leaving  the  Protestant  church  of  England  as  he 
had  for  leaving  the  Catholic  Church  in  Spain.  And,  whether,  if  in  this 
state  of  mind  he  had  selected  profligate  infidels  for  his  companions,  read 
the  works  of  philosophists  against  revelation,  indulged  in  gross  immoral 
habits,  in  a  word  acted  in  England  as  he  acted  in  Spain,  the  result  would 


320  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


not.  have  been  similar  ?  Therefore  upon  his  own  shewing,  it  was  not  the 
superiority  of  evidence,  the  preponderance  of  argument  in  favor  of 
Protestantism  over  Catholicism,  which  kept  him  now  in  the  new  church, 
nor  was  it  that  faith  which  is  founded  upon  the  conviction  of  unerring 
truth,  when  the  special  truth  has  been  clearly  proved;  but  he  avoids  in- 
fidelity, because  he  had  experienced  its  folly,  and  he  remains  a  Protestant, 
not  upon  a  Protestant  principle,  but  upon  a  Catholic  principle;  not 
because  he  discovers  the  special  truth  of  the  particular  doctrine,  but 
because  he  must  adhere  to  the  declarations  of  Christ:  and  to  me  it  is 
most  extraordinary  how  he  can  know  what  is  the  meaning  of  those  dec- 
larations, unless  he  takes  it  from  the  authority  of  the  Church,  for  he 
does  not  take  it  upon  his  own  private  judgment,  since  he  informs  us  that 
he  was  unable  to  form  any  judgment  or  decision  as  to  what  Christ 
taught :  doubt,  and  the  moral  fever,  not  conviction  of  truth,  having  been 
the  result  of  his  studies,  and  hence  he  rests  from  his  studies  without 
coming  to  any  decision,  and  therefore  if  he  believes,  it  must  be  upon  au- 
thority, and  not  upon  private  judgment. 

"For  some  time  I  thought  it  an  act  of  criminal  insincerity  to  ap- 
proach, with  these  doubts,  the  sacramental  table;  but  the  consciousness 
that  it  was  not  in  my  power  to  alter  my  state  of  mind,  and  that,  if 
death,  as  it  appeared  very  probable,  should  overtake  me  as  I  was,  I  could 
only  throw  myself  with  all  my  doubts  upon  the  mercy  of  my  Maker, 
induced  me  to  do  the  same  in  the  performance  of  the  most  solemn  act 
of  religion." 

This  is  the  man  who  in  Spain  daily  approached  the  sacramental 
table,  not  only  with  doubts,  but  with  absolute  infidelity,  and  this  during 
his  ten  years  of  hypocrisy ! — Let  his  own  words  be  his  own  condemnation. 

I  shall  not  dwell  now  upon  this  most  extraordinary  but  by  no  means 
uncommon  assertion  "that  it  w^as  not  in  his  power  to  alter  his  state  of 
mind."  Never  was  there  a  more  groundless,  a  more  dangerous,  or  a 
more  irreligious  proposition.  But  I  am  not  now  examining  his  doctrine, 
but  his  history.  How  quickly  he  overcame  his  scruples;  and  without 
faith  he  does  that  for  which  faith  is  required,  and  pledges  a  virtue  which 
he  does  not  possess.  As  yet  then  Mr.  White  is  not  a  believer.  But 
now  his  conversion  is  to  be  affected. 

"But  I  had  not  often  to  undergo  this  awful  trial.  Objections  which, 
during  this  struggle-,  had  appeared  to  me  unanswerable,  began  gradually 
to  lose  their  weight  on  my  mind.  The  Christian  Evidences  which,  at 
the  period  of  my  change  from  infidelity,  struck  me  as  powerful  in  detail, 
now  presenting  themselves  collectively,  acquired  a  strength  which  no 
detached  difficulties  (and  all  the  arguments  of  infidelity  are  so,)  could 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO   WHITE  321 

shake.  My  mind,  in  fact,  found  rest  in  that  kind  of  conviction  which 
belongs  peculiarly  to  moral  subjects,  and  seems  to  depend  on  an  in- 
tuitive perception  of  the  truth  through  broken  clouds  of  doubt,  wliicU 
it  id  not  in  the  power  of  mortal  man  completely  to  dispel.  Let  no  one 
suppose  that  I  allude  to  either  mysterious  or  enthusiastic  feelings;  I 
speak  of  conviction  arising  from  examination.  But  any  man,  accus- 
tomed to  observe  the  workings  of  the  mind,  will  agree,  that  conviction, 
in  intricate  moral  questions,  comes  finally  in  the  shape  of  internal  feel- 
ings— a  perception  perfectly  distinct  from  syllogistic  conviction,  but 
which  asserts  the  strongest  power  over  our  moral  nature.  Such  per- 
ception of  the  truth  is,  indeed,  the  spring  of  our  most  important  actions, 
the  common  bond  of  social  life,  the  ground  of  retributive  justice,  the 
parent  of  all  human  laws.  Yet,  it  is  inseparable  from  more  or  less  doubt ; 
for  doubtless  conviction  is  only  to  be  found  about  objects  of  sense,  or 
those  abstract  creations  of  the  mind,  pure  number  and  dimension,  which 
employ  the  ingenuity  of  mathematicians.  That  assurance  respecting 
things  not  seen,  which  the  Scriptures  call  Faith,  is  a  supernatural  gift, 
which  reasoning  can  never  produce.  This  difference  between  the  con- 
viction resulting  from  the  examination  of  the  Christian  Evidences,  and 
faith,  in  the  scriptural  sense  of  the  word,  appears  to  me  of  vital  im- 
portance, and  much  to  be  attended  to  by  such  as,  having  renounced  the 
Gospel,  are  yet  disposed  to  give  a  candid  hearing  to  its  advocates.  The 
power  of  the  Christian  Evidences,  is  that  of  leading  any  considerate 
mind,  unobstructed  by  prejudice,  to  the  records  of  revelation,  and  mak- 
ing it  ready  to  derive  instruction  from  that  source  of  supernatural 
truth;  but  it  is  the  spirit  of  truth  alone  that  can  impart  the  internal 
conviction  of  faith." 

Mark  then  finally  what  he  describes  his  faith  to  be,  a  belief  of  truth 
accompanied  with  clouds  of  doubt,  which  it  is  not  in  man's  power  to 
dispel ;  conviction  of  truth,  perception  of  truth,  yet  not  conviction,  and 
not  perception,  because  accompanied  with  more  or  less  doubt.  -Assur- 
ance of  truth  given  by  God,  because  supernatural,  and  yet  not  as  strong 
an  assurance  of  truth  as  we  have  from  the  objects  that  fall  under  the 
cognizance  of  our  senses.  An  internal  conviction  of  faith,  coming 
from  the  Spirit  of  truth,  and  yet  inseparable  from  more  or  less  doubt. 
My  friends,  is  this  contradictory  jargon  intelligible?  Yet  such  is  Mr. 
"White 's  faith !  !  Was  I  wrong  then  when  I  asserted  that  as  yet  he  had 
no  faith.  We  call  faith  "a  firm  belief  of  all  that  God  reveals."  The 
objects  of  sense  may  and  do  frequently  delude  and  deceive,  but  God  can- 
not deceive.  Error  is  frequently  detected  in  the  operations  of  the 
mind  respecting  pure  number  and  dimension,  mathematicians  have  fre- 


322  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


quently  erred  and  misled.  But  who  shall  say  that  God  might  be  de- 
ceived? Who  shall  say  that  God  can  deceive  us  when  he  reveals  knowl- 
edge, and  requires  our  belief?  The  heavens  and  the  earth  may  pass 
away,  but  his  word  cannot  fail. 

Will  Bishop  Kemp  call  this  blasphemy  of  White  a  description  of 
faith?  Will  this  pack  of  Doctors  avow  that  the  certainty  of  what  the 
Scriptures  contain  is  more  liable  to  doubt  than  is  the  investigation  of 
the  philosopher?  I  have  frequently  discovered  that  respectable  gentle- 
men and  good  scholars  of  other  Churches,  with  whom  I  conversed,  had 
not  the  most  remote  idea  of  the  nature  of  faith.  But  this  is  the  first 
time  in  my  life  that  I  find  a  congregated  assembly  of  Protestant  assail- 
ants of  Catholicism,  with  a  convert  bishop  at  their  head,  avow  by  impli- 
cation that  they  are  not  as  certain  of  the  truth  of  the  doctrines  which  they 
preach,  which  the  Spirit  of  truth  reveals,  and  imparts,  and  which  the 
Bible  contains,  as  they  are  of  the  truth  what  falls  under  the  observa- 
tion of  their  senses.  Yet  these  gentlemen  are  well  paid  for  preaching 
as  truth  what  they  only  perceive  through  broken  clouds  of  doubt,  which 
it  is  not  in  the  power  of  mortal  man  completely  to  dispel !  The  truths 
of  the  Bible,  they  say  are  surrounded  by  such  doubts,  the  Catholic  says 
they  are  not;  and  yet  these  gentlemen  assail  the  Catholic  for  not  making 
the  Bible  the  standard  of  his  belief !  !  !  Will  Bishop  Kemp  adhere  to 
White  and  give  up  the  Bible:  or  adhere  to  the  Bible,  and  confess  that 
he  did  wrong  in  recommending  this  unbeliever  as  an  orthodox  son  of 
the  Protestant  Church?  If  Bishop  Kemp  has  not  so  much  affection  for 
his  beloved  Zion,  even  I  shall  protect  her  against  the  sceptic  renegade. 
The  Church  of  England  teaches  that  the  truth  of  the  Scriptures  is  in- 
fallibly established.  White  does  not  give  the  doctrine  of  the  Church 
of  England,  though  he  pledged  his  oath  to  give  it. 

Having  thus,  as  he  states,  "  gone  through  the  religious  history  of 
his  mind,"  he  adds  that  under  that  "mental  despotism  which  would 
prevent  investigation  by  the  fear  of  eternal  ruin,  or  which  mocks  redson 
by  granting  the  examination  of  the  premises  while  it  reserves  to  itself 
the  right  of  drawing  conclusions ;  he  was  irresistibly  urged  into  a  denial 
of  revelation."  If,  as  it  would  appear,  he  means  this  as  a  description 
of  the  system  of  our  Church,  his  first  assertion  is  a  gross  mistatement ; 
so  far  from  preventing,  we  invite  investigation;  we  dread  the  careless, 
the  heedless,  the  persons  who  only  glance  and  rapidly  hasten  to  undue 
conclusions,  because  they  have  not  investigated;  but  we  have  no  dread 
of  him  who  calmly  and  closely  searches  with  a  sincere  love  for  truth. 
White  himself  finds  his  first  position  to  be  untenable,  and  he  therefore 
quickly  abandons  it,  and  takes  up  another,  but  one,  if  possible,  less  fitted 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO    WHITE  323 


for  his  purpose :  he  admits  that  we  invite  to  a  close  examination  of  the 
premises,  but  will  not  allow  a  right  of  drawing  conclusions  except  in 
one  way.  Did  any  logician  know  of  opposite  conclusions  flowing  from 
the  same  premises?  Was  there  ever  such  a  mockery  of  reason  as  to 
assert  that  contradictions  can  flow  from  the  same  source  of  reason?  Is 
it  because  the  Catholic  Church  applies  in  the  important  concern  of 
religion  the  great  principle  of  right  reason,  of  good  sense,  and  of  correct 
logic,  that  she  is  to  be  accused  of  mocking  reason?  Could  this  sentence 
have  been  indited  by  a  man  of  common  information  ?  Does  Bishop  Kemp 
approve  of  this  ?  Surely  the  only  rational  mode  of  testing  an  argument 
of  religion  is  by  investigation  of  the  premises:  there  can  be  no  liberty, 
no  choice  as  to  the  conclusion. 

This  extraordinary  outrage  upon  logic  is  followed  by  an  outrage 
upon  the  truth.  "But  no  sooner  did  I  obtain  freedom,  than  instead 
of  my  mind  running  riot  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  long  delayed  boon, 
it  opened  to  conviction  and  acknowledged  the  truth  of  Christianity." 
His  mind  was  free  in  Spain  as  it  was  in  England,  and  he  tells  us  the 
consequence  in  Dohlado's  Letters. 

But  even  after  his  arrival  in  England,  four  years  elapsed  before  he 
is,  according  to  his  own  account,  convinced  of  the  substantial  truth  of 
Christianity,  and  five  years  after,  that  is  nine  years  after  his  arrival 
in  England,  and  nineteen  years  after  emancipating  his  mind  from  des- 
potism of  being  obliged  to  draw  correct  conclusions  from  examined 
premises,  he  is  rapidly  gliding  into  the  gulf  of  scepticism,  from  which 
he  escapes,  not  by  the  examination  of  either  premises  or  conclusions ;  but 
by  throwing  himself,  with  all  his  doubts,  "upon  the  mercy  of  his  maker," 
and  by  having  "a  perception  perfectly  distinct  from  syllogistic  con- 
viction," "an  intuitive  perception  of  truth  through  broken  clouds  of 
doubt,  which  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  mortal  man  to  dispel. ' ' 

Here  I  close  my  examination  of  the  character  of  Mr.  White.  From 
his  own  words,  he  is  illiberal  descendant  of  a  persecuted,  Irish  Cath- 
olic family,  who,  having  deserted  his  religion  and  his  country,  calls  upon 
the  oppressive  government  of  Great  Britain  to  continue  the  affliction 
of  the  land  of  his  ancestors,  since  its  inhabitants  will  not,  like  him,  desert 
the  religion  of  his  fathers,  and  of  their  choice.  He  is  a  man  whose  youth 
was  spent  in  crime,  whose  manhood  was  a  tissue  of  hypocrisy,  infidelity, 
injustice  and  profligacy,  who  asserts  gross  falsehoods,  and  piles  up  in- 
numerable contradictions,  upon  the  most  solemn  subject;  a  man  who  is 
totally  bereft  of  family  affection,  having  exhibited  the  weakness  of  his 
parents,  and  betrayed  the  solemnly  confided  secrets  of  his  sisters,  if  his 
relation  be  true ;  a  man  upon  whose  word  you  can  place  no  reliance,  upon 


324  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

whose  reasoning  you  can  set  no  value,  and  upon  whose  conscience  you 
can  fix  no  bond  ;  for  he  has  deliberately  made,  and  as  deliberately  broken, 
his  solemn  vows,  he  has  sworn  and  forsworn ;  and  he  has  solemnly  called 
God  to  witness  what  was  legally  and  morally  impossible:  such  is  his 
account  of  himself,  and  if  sacrilege  can  add  another  tinge  to  the  colors 
which  he  has  laid  on ;  he  committed  sacrilege  in  the  profanation  of  the 
holy  Eucharist  daily  during  ten  years  in  Spain,  and  went  to  the  sac- 
ramental table  in  the  Church  of  England  whilst  harrased  with  doubts, 
at  a  "  time  he  thought  it  an  act  of  criminal  insincerity  to  approach  with 
these  doubts  to  the  sacramental  table,"  merely  because  "he  was  con- 
scious that  it  was  not  in  his  power  to  alter  the  state  of  his  mind. ' ' 

This  is  the  witness  of  extraordinary  qualifications,  whom  the  Right 
Rev.  Father  in  God,  James  Kemp,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal ChiTrch  in  Maryland,  and  the  Rev.  William  Hawley,  the  Rev. 
Doctors  Wilmer,  Tyng,  and  Co.  bring  forward  to  convict  nearly  two 
hundred  millions  of  the  human  family,  for  so  great  is  the  number  in 
our  communion,  and  all  their  predecessors  since  the  days  of  the  Apostles, 
amongst  whom  were  and  are  some  of  the  brightest  ornaments  and  best 
benefactors  of  the  human  race. 

I  probably  have  been  thought  tedious,  and  may  have  been  looked 
upon  as  having  strayed  from  the  true  question,  which  was  the  value  of 
the  Evidence.  But  its  value  must  necessarily  depend  in  a  great  measure 
upon  the  character  of  the  witness,  and  as  he  was  trumpeted  forth  as 
above  all  suspicion,  and  possessing  peculiar  facilities  and  uncommon 
qualifications,  I  felt  myself  called  upon  to  exhibit  him  such  as  he  really 
is,  from  his  own  words.  I  have  other  information,  which  I  have  ab- 
stained from  using,  as  though  I  knew  the  correctness  of  the  facts,  I  could 
not  adduce  the  authority.  I  shall  now,  in  every  case  where  we  have  only 
Mr.  White 's  assertion  for  the  truth  of  the  fact,  consider  it  as  not  worth 
examination,  until  some  one  of  his  compurgators  shall  prove  him  worthy 
of  credit — and  my  future  letters  shall  contain  an  examination  of  his 
Evidence.  Yours,  b.  c. 


LETTER  XIV 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Dec.  4,  1826. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends, — Having  disposed  of  the  author,  we  now  come  to  his 
work.  The  Evidence  of  Mr,  White  consists  of  three  portions,  viz.  his  as- 
sertions, the  value  of  which  is  nothing;  his  reasoning,  which  is  worth 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  325 


what  may  be  found  to  be  the  result  of  its  examination;  and  the  state- 
ments and  reasonings  of  others ;  the  value  of  which  is  to  be  determined 
also  upon  their  examination.  His  work  is  divided  into  chapters,  each 
of  which  contains  his  evidence  upon  one  or  more  of  the  doctrines  or 
practices  of  our  Church.  His  second  chapter  is  the  one  which  I  now 
come  to  examine.  This  regards  the  real  and  practical  extent  of  the  au- 
thority of  the  Pope,  according  to  the  Roman  Catholic  faith.  Next,  In- 
tolerance, its  natural  consequences.  I  now  proceed  to  examine  his  state- 
ments respecting  the  first  portion  of  this  matter. 

He  first  states  that,  in  Catholic  countries,  the  distinction  between 
doctrines  of  faith  which  are  immutable,  and  opinions  upon  which  dis- 
putes and  difi'erences  are  tolerated  is  clearly  understood;  but  such  a 
distinction  is  not  understood  in  England.  If  he  means  to  insinuate, 
that  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  British  islands  are  not  as  well  informed 
respecting  this  distinction  as  are  any  other  portion  of  their  fellow-mem- 
bers in  the  Church,  he  has  written  what  is  not  true.  If  he  means  only 
to  state,  that  Protestants  do  not  generally  understand  the  distinction,  I 
agree  with  him,  and  will  go  farther  and  assert,  that  in  this  country  I 
have  scarcely  met  with  a  Protestant  who  had  the  most  remote  notion  of 
the  distinction.  As,  perhaps,  some  such  persons  may  read  this  letter, 
I  shall  exhibit  its  nature,  because  it  is  important.  By  the  principles 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  no  person  is  bound  to  believe  any  thing 
as  an  article  of  faith,  save  what  God  has  revealed.  If  God  has  re- 
vealed its  truth,  that  truth  is  immutable;  no  discovery  in  science,  no 
progress  of  knowledge,  no  improvement  in  society,  can  make  that  which 
God  has  revealed  cease  to  be  the  truth  of  God;  it  must  continue  to  be 
the  doctrine  of  faith;  immutable,  irreformable,  to  the  end  of  the  world, 
in  every  nation  of  the  world.  The  denial  of  such  truth  constitutes  the 
loss  of  faith,  and  a  separation  from  the  Church.  There  are  several 
topics  in  some  measure  connected  with  religion,  upon  which  we  have 
no  revelation  of  God,  or  if  he  made  a  revelation,  we  have  no  evidence 
thereof;  those  topics  are  frequently  discussed;  Roman  Catholics  believe 
that  no  power  was  left  to  the  Church  to  compel  us  to  adopt  any  par- 
ticular opinion  upon  those  topics,  if  God  made  no  revelatin,  because 
no  power  but  that  of  God  himself  can  command  the  submission  of  the 
human  mind;  and  if  it  should  so  happen,  that  a  doubt  existed,  as  to 
whether  any  revelation  was  made  upon  such  topics,  during  the  inquiry, 
and  until  the  discovery  of  the  evidence,  the  Church  has  no  power  to 
command  our  adoption  of  one  opinion,  or  our  rejection  thereof.  She 
is  said  then  to  tolerate  any  such  opinion;  because,  if  she  does  not  see 
that  God  has  revealed  what  is  incompatible  with  its  truth,  she  cannot 


326  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


prevent  its  being  held,  nor  cut  off  from  her  communion  those  persons 
who  may,  upon  such  topic,  hold  even  contradictory  opinions.  Thus 
she  cannot  tolerate  any  error  in  faith;  but  she  does  and  must  tolerate 
dift'erence  of  opinion  where  faith  is  not  concerned. 

When,  therefore,  I  state  that  for  Catholic  faith  an  agreement  with 
the  Church  in  all  her  doctrines  is  required,  I  do  not  mean  opinions  by 
doctrines,  for  doctrine  is  what  God  has  revealed ;  opinion  is  but  the  con- 
jecture of  man;  doctrine  emanates  from  the  Almighty,  and  is  testified 
by  the  tribunal  of  the  Church;  opinion  flows  from  human  reasoning, 
and  can  be  testified  by  no  tribunal :  each  individual  forms  his  own,  and 
changes  it  when  and  to  what  extent  he  pleases.  The  Church  is  answer- 
able for  all  the  results  of  her  doctrine,  but  is  not  chargeable  with  either 
the  opinions  or  the  results  of  the  opinions  of  her  members,  however  ele- 
vated or  depressed  may  be  their  station.  The  doctrine  is  known  from 
the  testimony  of  the  public  tribunal ;  the  opinion  is  found  in  the  disqui- 
sitions of  individuals  or  parties.  In  our  courts  of  law,  the  decision  of 
the  bench  is  of  value,  and  is  authority ;  but  the  private  opinion  of  one 
of  the  judges,  or  the  argument  of  one  of  the  lawyers,  or  of  any  number 
of  the  members  of  the  bar,  is  not  the  decision  of  the  court.  By  keeping 
this  distinction  which  White  recognizes,  with  which  every  Catholic  is 
conversant,  but  with  which  few  Protestants  are  acquainted,  fully  in 
view,  almost  all  White's  argument  will  be  found  worse  than  valueless. 

As  I  am  in  some  measure  obliged  to  follow  the  order  of  the  work, 
I  am  here  compelled  to  make  a  digression  to  another  topic.  White  next 
distinguishes  amongst  the  English  Catholics  two  kinds  of  writers;  one 
who  write  for  the  Protestant  public,  and  for  Catholics  who  cannot  digest 
the  real  system  of  the  Roman  head:  "the  other  who  write  for  the  mass 
of  the  British  and  Irish  Church,  who  still  adhere  to  the  Roman  Catholic 
system,  such  as  it  is  professed  in  countries  where  all  other  religions  are 
condemned  by  law."  "In  our  devotional  books,  he  recognizes  every  fea- 
ture of  the  religion  in  which  he  was  educated."  In  those  intended  for 
the  public  at  large,  he  finds  only  a  flattering  portrait,  almost  ideal  and 
disguised  to  prevent  disgust. 

Upon  this  passage  I  shall  not  have  to  dwell  for  any  length  of  time. 
I  shall  merely  remark :  first,  that  as  regarded  what  he  calls  ' '  Catholics 
who  cannot  digest  the  real  system,"  it  would  be  the  most  drivelling  folly 
to  write  for  them  books  of  one  kind  with  a  digestible  doctrine,  different 
from  that  which  was  indigestible,  and  which  they  could  purchase  in 
any  shop,  or  take  up  in  any  church,  or  find  in  any  family ;  which  they 
had  in  their  hands  in  childhood,  were  examined  upon  in  their  youth, 
and  heard  preached  from  every  pulpit  during  their  lives — such  an  at- 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  327 

tempt  at  imposture  would  defeat  itself.  What  can  be  thought  of  the 
moral  feeling,  or  of  the  understanding  of  him  who  could  make  such  a 
statement  ?  If  White  knew  the  facts  he  must  have  seen  the  books,  why- 
does  he  not  give  the  dissonant  passages?  Our  books  of  devotion  are 
held  on  sale  by  booksellers  of  every  religious  denomination:  many  of 
the  best  editions  have  been  given  by  Protestants.  To  what  straits  then 
must  that  man  be  driven  who  would  make  such  an  assertion  as  the 
above?  In  any  ordinary  case,  this  flagrant  falsehood  would  speak 
enough  for  the.  condemnation  of  him  who  made  it.  But  we  have  hero 
a  most  important  concession,  or  rather  recognition  of  a  plain  fact,  viz. 
"That  the  religious  system  of  the  mass  of  the  British  and  Irish  Cath- 
olic Church  is  such  as  it  is  in  those  countries,  where  all  other  religions 
are  condemned  by  law.  Consequently,  the  same  as  it  is  in  Spain:  for 
White  recognizes  every  feature  of  the  religion  in  which  he  was  edu- 
cated," page  42. 

He  then  introduces  Mr.  Charles  Butler's  Booh  of  tlie  Roman  Cath- 
olic Church  as  a  most  artful  picture  of  the  disguising  kind,  but  without 
making  the  comparison  which  would  have  sustained  his  assertion  if 
true.  I  regret  much  never  having  had  an  opportunity  of  seeing  this 
work,  and  the  more  so,  as  on  the  present  occasion  it  causes  me  to  write 
under  considerable  disadvantage.  He  charges  Mr.  Butler  with  having 
made  a  mistake  in  translating  a  Latin  passage — but  which  mistake  has 
no  concern  that  I  can  see  with  any  doctrine — and  therefore  I  shall 
grant  the  victor  the  full  benefit  of  his  plume.  At  all  events  it  would 
tend  to  show  that  ignorant  as  were  the  monks  at  Seville,  they  knew  how 
to  teach  Latin,  and  that  all  their  pains  were  not  lost  upon  their  pre- 
cocious pupil.  Having  now  triumphantly  fixed  this  feather  in  his  cap, 
he  comes  flushed  with  conquest  to  inform  the  British  Catholics  that  Mr. 
Butler  has  given  an  incorrect  view  of  their  most  essential  duties  as 
Catholics.  We  must  recollect  that  this  is  the  same  Mr.  White  who  paid 
no  attention  to  the  dull  lectures  of  divinity  at  Seville,  and  who  took 
out  his  degree  at  Osuna,  for  which  no  examination  or  interval  was  re- 
quired. This  same  gentleman  now  bloated  into  knowledge,  and  swelled 
to  as  great  a  size  as  Dr.  Kemp  could  desire,  pays  "attention  to  some 
remarks  on  that  part  of  Butler's  book  which  treats  of  the  authority  of 
the  Pope." — Of  course  it  cannot  be  expected  that  I  should  be  able 
to  shew  how  his  remarks  have  or  have  not  any  bearing  upon  a  book 
which  I  have  not  seen :  but  I  shall  take  up  the  remarks  upon  their  own 
merits.    Let  us  now  examine  them. 

"The  Book  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  labors  to  persuade  the 
world  that  the  authority  of  the  Pope  over  the  Catholics  is  of  so  spiritual 


328  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


a  nature,  as,  if  strictly  reduced  to  what  the  creed  of  that  Church  re- 
quires, can  never  interfere  with  the  civil  duties  of  those  who  own  that 
authority.  That  the  supreme  head  of  the  Catholics  has  for  a  long  series 
of  centuries,  actually  claimed  a  paramount  obedience,  and  thus  actually 
interfered  with  the  civil  allegiance  of  his  spiritual  subjects;  is  as  no- 
torious as  the  existence  of  the  Roman  See.  The  question  then,  is, 
whether  this  was  a  mere  abuse,  the  effect  of  human  passions  encouraged 
by  the  ignorance  of  those  ages,  or  a  fair  consequence  of  doctrines  held 
by  the  Roman  Church  as  of  divine  origin,  and  consequently  immutable. 
I  will  proceed  in  this  inquiry  upon  Mr.  Butler's  own  statement  of  Ro- 
man Catholic  articles  of  faith,  which  is  found  page  118  of  the  first  edi- 
tion of  his  work." 

Not  so  fast  however,  for  I  must  exhibit  White's  own  faults  as  I 
proceed.     In  this  extract  we  have  at  least  two.     Every  Roman  Catholic 
in  America  will  join  Mr.  Butler  in  declaring  that  the  Pope's  authority 
is  merely  of  a  spiritual  nature  and  can  never  interfere  with  the  temporal 
authority  of  our  government.     White  asserts  that  during  centuries  the 
Pope  has  claimed  a  paramount  obedience  and  thus  interfered  with  the 
civil  allegiance  of  his  spiritual  subjects.    The  fallacy  of  every  dishonest 
writer  is  founded  upon  vagueness.     Here  are  two  vague  expressions,  "a 
long  series  of  centuries"  and  "his  spiritual  subjects."    We  saw  before 
that  the  Catholic  faith  is  always  the  same,  and  is  the  same  for  all  per- 
sons.    To  be  the  foundation  of  a  good  argument  those  two  vague  ex- 
pressions should  as  logicians  would  say,  be  taken  universally,  that  is  to 
embrace  every  age  and  every  spiritual  subject  of  the  Pope.     But  in 
fact  the  first   "long  series  of  centuries"   embraces   only  a   period  of 
special  regulation  which  commenced  very  many  centuries  after  the  es- 
tablishment of  the  Church,  and  of  the  Popedom,  and  continues  to  sub- 
sist; hence  it  is  at  best  what  logicians  would  call  a  particular  propo- 
sition, and  Mr.  White,  against  every  rule  of  reason,  would  make  it  the 
foundation  of  an  universal  conclusion ;  which  is  just  as  good  reasoning  as 
it  would  be  to  say  that  every  priest  was  an  infidel  because  ]\Ir.  White  and 
a  few  of  his  profligate  companions  lost  their  faith.     Again,  though  the 
Pope  did  upon  special  grounds  interfere  with  the  civil  allegiance  of 
some  of  his  spiritual  subjects,  it  is  equally  notorious  that  where  those 
circumstances  did  not  exist,  he  did  not  attempt  to  interfere  with  others. 
I^Iany  Catholic  kings  aided  by  their  Catholic  subjects,  took  the  field 
against  his  allies,  and  did  not  thereby  lose  their  faith  or  forfeit  their 
character  of  his  spiritual  subjects  even  whilst  they  were  his  temporal  op- 
ponents. 

The  gentleman  next  gives  us  this  disjunctive  proposition:    "Either 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  329 

the  Pope  was  then  an  usurper,  or  he  held  his  power  by  divine  and  im- 
mutable authority."  Miserable  sophist! — a  very  tyro  would  have  told 
you  that  your  disjunction  admitted  a  mean,  and  that  mean  the  fact. 
"It  was  not  an  usurpation,  nor  was  it  held  by  divine  right,  but  by  the 
concession  and  the  institution  of  the  princes  and  the  people  of  Christen- 
dom." Suppose  Bishop  Kemp  seated  in  the  Presidential  chair  in  place 
of  ]Mr.  Adams,  by  the  fair  and  constitutional  act  of  the  American  peo- 
ple ;  what  would  be  thought  of  the  intellect  of  him  who  would  vaunt- 
ingly  proclaim,  that  [either]  he  was  an  usurper,  or  he  held  the  Presi- 
dency by  virtue  of  his  being  a  Protestant  Bishop.  Yet  the  argument 
which  would  support  this  disjunctive  would  be  just  as  good  as  that 
which  for  our  sins,  we  are  forced  to  bear  with  from  men  who  are 
thought  to  have  information.  It  is  the  sophism  which  argues  that 
coincidence  is  the  exhibition  of  cause  and  effect,  just  as  good  as  the 
reasoning  of  a  man  who  would  say,  that  no  one  but  a  priest  could  dis- 
cover and  form  our  system  of  Astronomy,  because  it  happened  that 
Copernicus  was  a  priest.  Will  our  American  doctors  sux)port  the  cor- 
rectness of  Mr.  White's  disjunction?  Yet  I  am  informed  that  some 
of  them  teach  logic,  and  others  are  or  have  been  professors  of  The- 
ology! !  ! — I  should  not  be  astonished  if  Parson  Hawley  asserted  that  it 
was  an  article  of  Catholic  faith  that  our  Saviour  taught  St.  Peter  how 
many  soldiers  would  be  necessary  to  defend  the  Papal  territory,  because 
Pepin  and  Charlemagne  had  about  seven  or  eight  centuries  after  his 
death  given  the  territory  to  one  of  his  successors ! — It  would  be  just  as 
rational  as  the  assertion  which  I  have  been  examining. 

The  author  of  the  Evidence  then  quotes  the  following  passage  from 
Mr.  Butler,  and  begins  his  comment  as  will  be  found  below. 

"A  chain  of  Roman  Catholic  writers  on  papal  power  might  be  sup- 
posed: on  the  first  link  we  might  place  the  Roman  Catholic  writers  who 
have  immoderately  exalted  the  prerogative  of  the  Pope ;  on  the  last  we 
might  place  the  Roman  Catholic  writers  who  have  unduly  depressed  it; 
and  the  centre  link  might  be  considered  to  represent  the  canon  of  the 
10th  session  of  the  Council  of  Florence,  which  defined  that  'full  power 
was  delegated  to  the  bishop  of  Rome  in  the  person  of  St.  Peter,  to  feed, 
regulate  and  govern  the  universal  Church,  as  expressed  in  the  general 
councils  and  holy  canons.'^     This  (adds  the  author,  in  capitals)  is  the 

°  Item,  diffinimus  sanctam  apostolicam  sedem,  et  Bomanum  Ponii'ficem  in  uni- 
versum  orbem  tenere  primatum,  et  ipsum  pontificem  Bomanum  successorem  esse  beati 
Petri  principis  apostolorum,  et  verum  Christi  vicarium,  totiusque  ecclesiae  caput  et 
omnium  Christianorum  patrem  ac  doctorem  existere;  et  ipsi  in  heato  Petro  pascendi, 
regendi  ac  giibeinandi  unviversalem  ecclesiam  a  domino  nostro  Jesu  Christo  plenam 
potestatem  traditam  esse;  quemadmodem  etiam  in  gestis  oecumenicorum  conciliorum, 
et  in  sacris  canonihus  continetur.     Cone.  Flor.  Labbe,  Tom.  xiii,  Col.  516. 


330  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


doctrine  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  on  the  Authority  of  the 
Pope,  and  beyond  it  no  Roman  Catholic  is  required  to  believe." 

"When  I  examine  the  vague  comprehensiveness  of  this  decree,  I 
can  hardly  conceive  what  else  the  Roman  Catholics  could  be  required  to 
believe.  Full  power  to  feed,  regulate  and  govern  the  universal  church, 
can  convey  to  the  mind  of  the  sincere  Catholic  no  idea  of  limitation." 

In  this  too  there  is  a  want  of  honesty  or  want  of  intellect:  I  pre- 
sume it  is  the  first,  because  the  commentator  asserts,  that  there  is  no 
limitation :  whereas  a  distinct  limitation  is  expressed  in  the  very  passage 
as  quoted  by  himself.  That  limitaton  is  the  expression  of  the  councils 
and  canons,  "as  expressed  in  the  general  councils  and  holy  canons." 
Now  those  general  councils  and  canons  have  never  extended  the  power 
of  the  Pope  to  temporals,  but  have  always  restrained  it  to  spirituals, 
except  when  they  recognized  in  special  cases  the  grant  of  authority  made 
by  princes  or  people  for  their  own.  benefit  to  the  Pope.  But  those  coun- 
cils or  canons  never  stated  that  he  had  any  such  power  by  divine  right 
and  immutably  recognized  as  of  faith.  Another  restriction  is  in  the 
word  Church  itself,  for  the  Church  which  is  the  congregation  of  the 
faithful,  is  a  body  established  for  spiritual  objects,  as  a  kingdom,  an  em- 
pire, a  republic  are  bodies  for  political  objects ;  as  well  mignt  it  be  said 
that  Congress  can  regulate  our  religious  concerns,  because  it  has  full 
power  to  govern  and  regulate  our  confederation,  as  that  the  Pope  and 
council  have  power  to  regulate  our  civil  concerns,  because  they  have  full 
power  to  govern  and  regulate  the  Church.  There  is  then  a  double  limi- 
tation ;  the  first  is  the  very  expression  Church ;  the  second  in  the  re- 
straining clause  as  expressed  in  the  general  councils  and  holy  canons.  It 
is  therefore  incorrect  to  assert  that  there  is  no  limitation. 

The  remaining  farrago  of  his  paragraph  of  remarks  is  then  an- 
swered upon  the  principle  of  the  first  distinction  which  he  recognizes 
himself.  "We  are  bound  by  faith  to  believe  that  God  gave  to  Peter  and 
his  successors,  the  full  power  of  feeding  with  doctrine  and  sacraments, 
and  regulating  and  governing  by  ecclesiastical  discipline  the  universal 
Church;  that  the  decisions  of  general  councils  and  the  canons  of  the 
Church  exhibit  the  extent  of  his  power  is  a  fact,  and  that  the  power  does 
not  extend  beyond  what  they  exhibit,  is  clearly  declared.  It  is  clear  that 
they  who  attribute  to  the  Pope  more  power,  do  not  deny  that  he  has 
the  quantity  which  the  canons  and  councils  define.  But  it  is  manifest 
that  others  are  bound  to  answer  for  their  private  opinion  in  support  of 
this  more  extensive  power,  because  this  charge  is  against  what  we  have 
found  to  be  correct,  even  by  "White's  admission.  Suppose  what  we  all 
will  easily  understand,  that  the  power  of  the  President  to  make  appoint- 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO   WHITE  331 


ments  to  vacant  offices  of  embassy,  is  fully  acknowledged  by  all  persons 
as  our  constitutional  doctrine ;  some  persons  will  also  be  found  to  assert 
that  not  only  has  the  President  that  power,  but  much  more,  and  of  a 
different  description.  Several  persons  deny  for  instance  that  he  has  the 
power  of  appointing  inspectors  of  national  roads,  others  assert  that  he 
has  such  power.  All  agree  that  he  has  full  power  to  govern  the  Union, 
as  expressed  in  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the  laws  of 
Congress.  What  would  be  thought  of  the  man  who  should  assert  that 
the  phrase  full  power  destroyed  the  limitation  of  the  constitution  and  the 
law  ?  Yet  such  is  the  construction  which  Mr.  White  would  give,  and  by 
this  construction,  ridiculously  affirm  that  his  power  is  not  full  unless  it 
extends  to  everything !  ! — This  is  the  sort  of  mockery  of  reasoning  which 
our  assailants  are  in  the  habit  of  using.  Would  any  man  having  a  con- 
scientious feeling  of  Religion  thus  quibble  with  the  institutions  of 
Heaven  ? 

The  succeedng  passage  of  the  Evidence  betrays  the  sophistry. 
"Whatever  be  the  extent  of  the  chain  imagined  by  our  author,  the 
decree  appears  to  have  been  framed  wide  enough  not  to  exclude  the  link 
containing  the  writers  who  have  most  exalted  the  papal  power.  The 
task  of  those  on  the  ether  extremity  of  the  chain,  is  certainly  more  dif- 
ficult ;  for  it  cannot  be  well  conceived  why  mere  human  rights  should  be 
allowed  to  limit  a  full  power  to  govern  the  minds  of  men,  derived  from 
a  direct  injunction  of  Christ." 

The  sophistry  is  now  manifest;  it  is  what  logicians  call  arguing  a 
dido  secundum  quid,  ad  dictum  simpliciter,  that  is,  arguing  from  par- 
ticular premises  to  universal  conclusions  in  effect,  as  thus,  "the  Pope  has 
power  to  govern  you  in  every  thing  specified  by  the  councils  and  canons, 
therefore  he  has  such  power  in  every  case  whether  so  specified  or  not." 
It  is  changing  the  middle  term  of  a  syllogism,  as  thus,  "Catholics  recog- 
nize in  the  Pope  the  full  power  which  the  canons  and  councils  declare  to 
be  attached  to  his  office.  But  full  power  to  govern  men's  minds  neces- 
sarily destroys  human  rights.  Therefore  Catholics  recognize  in  the 
Pope  power  to  destroy  human  rights. ' '  Such  is  the  miserable  disingenuity, 
which  begs  the  very  question  in  debate,  by  assuming  that  the  canons  and 
councils  declare  that  the  Pope  has  unlimited  power  to  govern  men's 
minds :  and  this  assumption  is  made  against  the  fact ;  for  in  truth  we  do 
not  admit  any  such  power  to  exist  except  in  God  himself.  We  look  upon 
those  who  assert  that  we  admit  the  existence  of  the  Papal  power  to  such 
an  extent,  to  be  very  wretchedly  informed  of  our  tenets,  if  they  believe 
the  truth  of  their  assertion ;  and  if  they  do  not  believe  its  truth,  we  must 


332  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

feel  humbled,  disgusted,  and  mortified,  at  the  exhibition  of  our  depraved 
and  corrupted  nature. 

The  author  of  the  Evidence  continues  to  state,  [that]  there  is  noth- 
ing in  the  Catholic  decisions  to  exclude  the  Pope  from  having  temporal 
power.  We  may  verily  answer,  that  neither  is  there  any  thing  to  assert 
that  he  has  such  power.  Shall  it  be  therefore  concluded,  that  the  canons 
recognize  its  existence  ?  As  well  might  it  be  argued,  from  the  silence  of 
our  constitution  and  statutes,  that  Mr.  President  Adams  has  power  to 
order  one  of  our  commodores  to  sail  upon  a  voyage  of  discovery  to  the 
interior  of  the  globe,  because  there  is  nothing  in  the  constitution  or 
laws  of  Congress  to  prevent  him,  and  he  has  full  power  to  order  them  to 
go  where  he  may  deem  it  necessary.  It  may  be  answered,  that  this  was 
never  contemplated  in  the  power  which  the  people  and  the  States  gave 
to  the  President.  Neither  was  the  exercise  of  temporal  power  included 
in  the  commission  given  to  Peter,  by  Him  who  said  that  his  kingdom 
was  not  of  this  world,  and  who  sent  the  brother  who  disputed  about 
property  to  the  tribunal  of  the  civil  governor;  and  if  Cisalpine  writers 
will  endeavor  to  draw  the  canon  of  Florence  to  mean  that  the  Pope  has 
temporal  power  by  divine  right,  I  will  stop  their  progress  until  they 
produce  to  me  the  decision  of  a  General  Council  or  a  holy  canon,  to  es- 
tablish the  fact  of  this  meaning  having  been  ever  admitted ;  and  for  this 
they  will  have  to  wait  as  long  as  the  commodore  would  the  return  of 
Captain  Symmes  from  his  polar  expedition  to  discover  the  ingress 
through  which  he  would  pilot  the  squadron  to  their  novel  destination. 

In  his  page  47,  the  author  asks  whether  the  Pope  did  not  issue  a 
sentence  of  deposition  against  Elizabeth?  I  answer,  yes,  and  in  the  face 
of  Christendom.  ' '  Had  not  a  similar  practice  prevailed, ' '  he  asks,  ' '  for 
many  centuries  before?"  To  this  I  answer,  that  I  do  not  know  of  a 
single  parallel  case  to  that  of  Elizabeth.  There  were  several  cases  upon 
several  grounds ;  but  not  one  that  I  ever  read  of  upon  the  same  ground 
as  this.  "Was  not  this  done  by  virtue  of  what  the  Popes  conceived  to 
be  their  divine  prerogative  declared  in  the  Council  of  Florence  ? ' ' 

My  answer  is,  no.  Each  case  is  to  stand  upon  its  own  merits ;  and 
they  do  not  all,  nor  perhaps  do  any  two  of  the  few  which  occurred,  rest 
upon  the  same  grounds  of  jurisdiction  in  the  Pope  who  either  deposed, 
or  who  attested  the  deposition. 

I  shall  now  make  a  case  in  which,  by  the  law  of  England,  the  Pope 
would  have  had  not  only  full  power,  but  would  be  obliged  to  issue  a 
sentence  of  deposition  against  Elizabeth. 

Had  the  English  people,  as  they  might,  declared  that  the  wretched 
parliament  which  permitted  Henry  VIII  to  settle  the  succession  of  the 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO   WHITE  333 


crown  by  his  will,  had  exceeded  its  powers,  and  that  the  British  crown 
could  descend  only  to  the  legitimate  heir;  upon  the  question,  whether 
Elizabeth  was  such  legitimate  heir,  and  thus  capable  of  inheriting  the 
crown ;  according  to  the  ancient  Christian  law  of  all  Europe,  the  decision 
must  depend  upon  the  validity  of  Catherine 's  marriage  with  Henry,  and 
in  an  ultimate  appeal  upon  this  question  by  that  law.  The  decision  must 
have  been  given  by  the  Pope,  as  the  supreme  judge  in  the  Catholic 
Church  of  the  validity  of  the  marriage ;  which  place  he  holds  by  divine 
right.  In  this,  which  however  is  not  the  exact  state  of  the  case,  the 
Pope  would,  by  divine  right,  have  laid  the  foundation  for  her  deposition, 
by  proclaiming  her  mother's  concubinage.  But  a  question  would  still 
be  reserved  for  the  English  nation,  in  the  decision  of  which  the  Pope 
would  have  no  divine  right  to  interfere,  viz.  whether  they  would  submit 
to  her  dominion,  and  make  legal  now  what  was  originally  an  usurpation. 
The  English  people  could,  if  they  chose,  do  so,  unless  they  were  bound 
by  some  contract  with  another  part  not  to  use  that  right,  or  unless  they 
had  by  some  contract  deprived  themselves  of  that  right,  which  they 
originally  had.  Before  their  religious  defection,  the  nation  formed  a 
portion  of  a  great  confederacy  of  Europe,  one  of  whose  articles  of  agree- 
ment was  that,  in  certain  cases,  of  which  this  defection  was  one,  the  Pope 
upon  the  evidence  of  the  fact  should  depose  the  delinquent  ruler,  and  ab- 
solve the  subjects  from  their  fealty  to  the  recreant.  This  confederation 
has  long  ceased  to  exist.  But  the  jurists  of  the  ages,  when  it  did  exist, 
argued  for  the  validity  of  the  power,  upon  the  very  same  principles 
which  keeps  us  now  an  united  confederation,  instead  of  being  dis- 
sociated and  weak  republics.  Besides  being  by  divine  appointment,  the 
spiritual  head  of  the  Church,  the  Bishop  of  Rome  was  by  the  act  and 
assent  of  the  princes  and  States  of  Christendom,  the  President  of  the 
temporal  confederation  of  those  powers ;  and  by  their  consent  and  act, 
he  was  frequently  not  only  authorized  but  required  to  enforce  by  spirit- 
ual power  the  moral  obligation  of  observing  their  compact,  upon  those 
who  appeared  to  be  disorderly,  and  to  punish  by  spiritual  censures,  in 
the  first  instance,  the  contumacious;  and  these  means  being  ineifectual, 
he  then  was  directed  to  give  sentence  of  deposition,  which  the  other  mem- 
bers of  the  union  were  to  carry  into  execution;  and  his  own  subjects 
were  released  from  their  fealty  to  the  delinquent,  not  by  the  power  which 
Christ  gave  to  Peter,  though  it  was  by  that  power  the  spiritual  censures 
were  issued,  but  by  the  power  derived  from  the  law  of  the  Congress  of 
those  States ;  such  as  that  law  of  the  potentates  of  Europe,  at  the  time 
of  the  Council  of  Lateran,  in  1215,  specially  made  for  such  a  case.  The 
Pope  acted  in  virtue  of  this,  and  laws  like  this,  and  not  by  virtue  of  the 


334  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

canon  of  Florence,  which  had  no  relation  to  the  case  in  any  way  what- 
ever. 

I  know  that  some  writers  never  possessed  heads,  or  had  information 
sufficient  to  see  the  real  state  of  the  case;  others  who  saw  it  clearly, 
thought  fit  intentionally  and  dishonestly  to  affect  ignorance,  and  wrote  as 
if  there  was  no  distinction.  Mr.  White  may  class  himself  under  which- 
ever head  he  pleases ;  but  to  one  or  the  other  he  belongs.  I  have  already 
extended  this  letter  beyond  my  limits,  and  must  break  off  here. 

Yours,  B.  c. 

LETTER  XV 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Dec.  14,  1826. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends, — We  have  seen  how  unfounded  is  the  charge  made  by 
White  upon  our  Church,  of  teaching  in  the  council  of  Florence,  that  the 
Pope  has  temporal  authority  by  divine  right.  We  have  seen  that  the 
principle  upon  which  the  power  of  deposing  monarchs  was  established, 
was  temporal  enactment.  This  alone  would  have  been  sufficient  answer 
to  those  charges  so  often  made  and  so  often  refuted,  yet  still  brought 
forward.  But  on  each  occasion  there  is  generally  some  variation  in  the 
mode  of  making  the  charges,  and  therefore  there  must  be  some  also  in 
the  answer.  On  pages  47  and  48,  White  uses  very  ingenious  sophistry 
to  endeavor  in  some  way  or  other  to  establish  the  fact,  that  the  deposing 
doctrine  is  an  article  of  Catholic  faith. 

Feeling  convinced  that  the  council  of  Florence  will  not  serve  his 
purpose,  without  abandoning  whatever  semblance  of  aid  it  may  give 
him,  he  takes  other  ground. 

It  is  a  principle  of  our  Church,  that  the  Pope  ''may  promulgate 
definitions  and  formularies  of  faith,  to  the  universal  church,  and  when 
the  general  body,  or  a  great  majority  of  her  prelates  have  assented  to 
them,  either  by  formal  consent,  or  by  tacit  consent,  all  are  bound  to  ac- 
quiesce in  them."  This  quotation  he  makes  from  Mr.  Butler's  book,  and 
the  principle  is  sound  and  correct.  What  are  the  requisites  to  command 
our  acquiescence? 

1.  That  what  is  promulgated  must  be  either  a  definition  of  faith,  or  a 
formulary  of  faith.  This  is  done  in  one  of  two  ways,  either  by  pub- 
lishing that  a  certain  doctrine  therein  stated  has  been  revealed  by 
God,  and  preserved  and  taught  in  the  Church,  and  is  to  be  believed 
as  an  article  of  faith ;  or  by  condemning  the  doctrine  as  contradict- 
ing what  God  has  revealed,  and  the  Church  has  taught,  and  forbid- 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  335 


ding  under  censures  any  person  to  hold  such  heretical  opinion,  or 

to  teach  or  favor  the  same. 

In  this  case  it  is  clear  that  a  condemned  doctrine  is  not  tolerated; 
also  that  the  defined  doctrine  is  not  tolerated,  but  is  taught.  This  dis- 
tinction between  a  tolerated  opinion,  and  a  doctrine  of  faith  we  have 
seen  in  my  last  letter,  and  it  is  recognized  by  White  in  the  first  para- 
graph of  his  letter  ii,  page  41. 

2.     The  promulgation  must  be  made  to  the  universal  Church,  not  mere- 
ly to  a  portion  thereof,  and  the  matter  must  concern  the  whole 

Church,  and  not  merely  a  portion  thereof. 

In  this  place  we  find  that  a  document  directed  to  a  particular  nation 
on  its  own  special  concerns  does  not,  and  never  has  been  considered  to 
come  under  this  principle. 

Mr.  White,  in  page  47,  asks  respecting  the  deposition  of  Elizabeth, 
and  so  forth.  "Did  not  the  greatest  part  of  the  Catholic  Bishops  allow 
by  their  tacit  or  express  consent,  that  the  head  of  their  Church  was  act- 
ing in  conformity  with  the  inspired  definition  of  his  power?"  Miserable 
subterfuge !— Every  student  of  theology  could  tell  you  that  an  act  of 
the  Pope  is  not  a  definition  of  an  article  of  faith— that  his  reasoning 
to  justify  his  acts  whether  good  or  bad  is  not  a  definition  of  an  article 
of  faith.  I  will  suppose  a  stronger  ease  than  any  act  of  deposition. 
Some  few  Popes  have  been  notoriously  bad  men:  suppose  some  one  of 
those  men,  published  to  the  Catholic  world  a  declaration  that  he  believed 
his  criminal  act  was  perfectly  justifiable  and  was  not  a  crime,  surely  it 
never  could  enter  into  any  person 's  head  that  this  palliation  or  attempted 
justification  of  his  conduct  to  the  world,  was  the  definition  of  an  article 
of  faith.  The  acts  of  the  Popes  were  not  definitions;  they  had  none 
of  the  conditions  required  in  the  first  head,  nor  were  they  directed  as 
required  in  the  second  to  all  the  Bishops  of  the  world.  The  Bishops 
of  the  country  which  was  in  question  were  the  only  prelates  concerned. 
What  concern,  for  instance  of  the  Bishop  of  this  Diocess,  is  it,  if  His 
Holiness  should  choose  to  inform  the  Bishops  and  people  of  Spain  that 
he  considers  Ferdinand  unfit  to  reign,  and  that  in  the  name  of  God,  he 
absolves  them  from  all  allegiance  to  him?  But  the  case  will  be  widely 
different,  if  His  Holiness  should  absolve  the  good  Catholics  of  South 
Carolina  from  their  allegiance  to  their  State  or  their  contract  with  the 
Union,  and  place  them  under  the  persecution  of  the  British  penal  laws, 
or  under  the  tender  mercies  of  his  Spanish  majesty.  Though  the  Bishop 
of  Charleston  would  protest  against  this  act,  and  declare  to  his  flock 
that  it  was  of  no  authority,  neither  the  British  or  Spanish  Bishops  would 
be  expected  to  take  the  same  trouble. 


336  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

White  himself,  in  page  47,  feels  this  ground  to  be  untenable,  and 
quickly  leaves  it :  declaring  in  page  48,  his  Papal  bulls  are  not  definitions 
or  formularies,  and  therefore  will  not  serve  his  purpose.  Why  then 
introduce  them?  To  excite  the  fears  of  the  timid,  the  doubts  of  the 
simple,  the  opposition  of  the  prejudiced;  and  uniting  those  together  to 
get  a  cry  of  no  Popery  for  John  Bull.  But  what  has  Bishop  Kemp  to 
do  with  this?  Is  he  so  ignorant  as  to  be  misled  by  this  sophistry?  I 
do  not  know.  The  good  prelate  may,  for  any  thing  that  I  know,  be  as 
learned  as  either  Duns  Scotus  or  St.  Thomas  of  Aquin :  but  if  he  is 
learned,  how  has  he  given  his  approbation  to  this  book:  and  what  was 
his  object  in  exciting  unfounded  fears  of  Papal  influence  in  America  ? 

The  writer  of  the  Evidence  continues  through  the  next  two  or  three 
pages  to  excite  the  same  alarms,  by  his  guessing  at  what  might  be  the 
reason  for  not  defining  that  the  Pope  had  no  power  over  temporal  con- 
cerns. The  reason  is  plain.  No  decision  is  made  in  the  Church  except 
for  the  purpose  of  preserving  safe  the  deposit  of  faith,  that  deposit 
is  never  in  danger  save  by  the  denial  of  some  revealed  truth.  They 
who  assert  that  it  is  their  opinion,  that  God  gave  temporal  power  to  the 
Pope,  teach  what,  though  not  a  part  of  Catholic  doctrine,  yet  does  not 
contradict  that  doctrine,  and  therefore  the  Church  has  no  authority  to 
condemn  or  to  censure  them,  any  more  than  she  has  authority  to  con- 
demn or  to  censure  those  who  say  they  are  mistaken.  Suppose  two 
mathematicians  differ.  One  of  them  states  that  lines  which  bear  a  cer- 
tain ratio  to  a  radius  will  form  the  sides  of  a  square  which  shall  be  equal 
to  the  circle ;  the  other  says  that  he  mistakes.  It  would  be  as  ridiculous 
for  the  Church  to  give  a  decision  between  them,  as  it  would  be  for  a 
court  of  equity  or  a  court  of  law  to  make  a  rule,  or  an  order  upon  the 
subject.  The  council  of  Florence  decided  that  the  Pope  has  power  to  a 
certain  extent  to  govern  the  Church.  In  America,  we  know  very  well 
that  the  Church  does  not  mean  the  State,  and  we  want  no  Pope  or  council 
to  decide  for  us,  what  we  know  too  well  to  ask  a  decision,  that  he  has  no 
power  to  govern  our  State.  We  will  not  quarrel  with  those  who  say  that 
he  has,  but,  if  ever  he  should  attempt  to  reduce  their  opinion  to  practice 
in  our  case,  we  and  our  Protestant  fellow-citizens  will  join  to  show  our 
belief,  as  the  English  Catholics  did  in  the  time  of  Elizabeth ;  and  a  very 
sufficient  proof  that  it  was  no  violation  of  their  doctrine  is,  that  neither 
Pope  or  council  ever  attempted  to  accuse  them  of  having  acted  irre- 
ligiously. I  commend  them  for  their  noble  opposition  to  foreign  force, 
and  for  their  alacrity  to  maintain  British  independence.  But  what  says 
Bishop  Kemp  to  their  Protestant  persecutors,  who  robbed  and  hanged 
and  beheaded  them  as  traitors  after  the  common  enemy  was  destroyed? 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  337 

This  single  fact  is  better  than  any  other  answer  to  the  labored  sophistry 
of  the  unprincipled  writer  of  the  Evidence. 

In  page  52,  he  makes  a  side  blow  at  the  infallible  council  for  the 
vagueness  of  its  canon.  The  canon  is  not  vague.  It  defines  all  that 
was  necessary.  The  question  was  between  the  Greeks  and  the  Latins, 
whether  the  Pope  was  the  spiritual  governor  of  all  the  Church,  or  only 
of  the  Western  portion  thereof,  and  the  canon  defined  that  he  was 
member  of  the  entire :  the  question  was  also  whether  this  was  by  divine 
appointment,  and  it  was  decided  in  the  affirmative.  No  question  was 
raised  upon  the  temporal  power,  and  of  course  there  was  no  vagueness 
in  its  omission.  Some  persons  may  if  they  choose,  hold  opinions  of 
their  own  upon  subjects  which  do  not  interfere  with  the  doctrines  of  the 
Church,  but  the  Church  is  not  accountable  for  those  opinions  nor  is 
she  called  upon  to  decide  upon  their  truth  or  falsehood,  nor  would  it 
be  correct  to  allow  the  tribunal  of  the  Church  to  make  such  decisions; 
as  well  might  she  be  required  to  decide,  whether  Guthrum  a  British 
king  made  a  present  of  Ireland  to  the  Milesians  about  fifteen  hundred 
years  before  the  Christian  era,  as  is  asserted  in  an  act  of  one  of  Queen 
Elizabeth's  parliaments. 

The  writer  of  the  Evidence  next  quarrels  with  the  statesmen  who 
guided  the  British  council  for  the  last  quarter  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
as  not  knowing  what  was  the  true  source  of  danger  from  papists,  and 
not  framing  their  questions  to  the  Catholic  Universities  in  a  proper  way : 
and  he  kindly  tells  the  British  and  Irish  Catholics,  that  "the  trial,  to 
which  as  British  subjects  they  are  exposed,  is  perfectly  unconnected 
with  the  temporal  claims  of  their  ecclesiastical  head:  it  flows  directly 
from  the  spiritual."  Do,  my  friends,  then  tell  our  Protestant  fellow 
citizens,  that  it  is  avowed  by  the  advocates  of  British  Protestant  per- 
secution, that  it  is  because  of  their  belief  in  the  spiritual  supremacy  of 
the  Pope,  the  Catholics  are  persecuted.  Tell  our  fellow  citizens,  that 
they  have  been  misled  by  the  Protestant  writers  who  assured  them  that 
the  British  government  cared  nothing  for  the  Pope's  spiritual  claims, 
they  only  resisted  his  temporal  claims,  and  only  punished  those  who 
would  set  him  up  as  the  monarch  of  their  monarch !  See  too  how  White, 
or  Southey,  or  whoever  this  writer  is,  now  undoes  all  that  he  had  through 
six  pages  urged  against  Mr.  Butler,  for  having  written  that  Catholics 
believed  only  that  they  were  subject  to  the  Pope 's  spiritual  power.  Yot 
now  he  says  in  page  52,  that  "he  does  not  conceive  the  Pope's  supremacy 
to  have  any  practical  effect  in  Great  Britain."  Why  then  are  the 
Catholics  persecuted?  Why  does  the  bench  of  bishops,  with  two  splen- 
did exceptions,  regularly  make  the  continuance  of  this  persecution? 


338  CONTROVEKSY  Vol. 

We  now  come  to  the  question  which  this  second  wise  man  of  Gotham 
would  substitute  for  the  three  which  by  j\Ir.  Pitt's  desire  were  propose'! 
to  the  Universities. 

Can  the  Pope,  in  virtue  of  what  Roman  Catholics  believe  his  divine 
authority,  command  the  assistance  of  the  faithful,  in  checking  the  pro- 
gress of  heresy,  by  any  means  not  likely  to  produce  danger  to  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church;  and  can  that  Church  acknowledge  the  validity  of  any 
engagement  to  disobey  the  Pope  in  such  cases? 

Before  answering  this  question,  though  I  am  not  an  University, 
I  shall  exhibit  another  which  is  put,  and  the  answer  which  is  given 
thereto  in  the  Church  of  which  ]\Ir.  White  says  he  is  a  member.  The 
question  is  put  by  the  Archbishop  to  a  person  to  be  consecrated  Bishop. 

Q.  Are  you  ready  with  all  faithful  diligence  to  banish  and  drive 
away  all  erroneous  and  strange  doctrine,  contrary  to  God's  word;  and 
both  privately  and  openly  to  call  upon  and  encourage  others  to  the  same  ? 
A.     I  am  ready,  the  Lord  being  my  helper. 

The  question  by  the  Bishop  to  the  person  to  be  ordained  priest. 

Q.  Will  you  be  ready  with  all  faithful  diligence  to  banish  and 
drive  away  all  erroneous  and  strange  doctrines  contrary  to  God's  word, 
and  so  forth.     A.     I  will,  the  Lord  being  my  helper. 

Q.  Will  you  reverently  obey  your  Ordinary,  and  other  chief  min- 
isters, unto  whom  is  committed  the  charge  and  government  over  you, 
following  with  a  glad  mind  and  will  their  godly  admonitions,  and  sub- 
mitting yourself  to  their  godly  judgments?  A.  I  will  do  so,  the  Lord 
being  my  helper. 

The  person  to  be  ordained  deacon  is  asked  the  same  question,  and 
gives  the  same  answer.  Connected  with  those  questions  and  answers, 
are  the  unquestionable  facts  that  the  English  Protestant  Church  has 
never  yet  been  one  moment  in  existence  without  being  uniformly  a 
persecuting  body.  And  that,  amongst  those  who  prominently,  steadily, 
uniformly,  and  almost  without  exception  maintained,  justified,  and  insti- 
gated that  persecution,  were  the  archbishops  and  bishops  of  that  Church. 
Would  it  then  be  an  extraordinary  assumption  for  me  to  say,  that  the 
clergy  of  that  Church  profess,  that  by  the  divine  law  they  are  bound 
to  check  the  progress  of  the  Roman  Catholic  religion,  by  any  means 
not  likely  to  produce  danger  to  the  English  Protestant  Church;  and 
that  the  inferior  clergy  believe  that  by  divine  authority  the  Bishops 
ought  to  command  their  assistance  for  that  purpose,  and  that  they 
acknowledge  the  validity  of  their  engagement  to  obey  the  Bishops  in 
such  cases,  and  that  persecution  of  Catholics  is  therefore  their  con- 
scientious duty,  and  that  they  therefore  are  bound  to  persecute  Catho- 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  339 


lies,  and  that  they  would  not  in  conscience  "regard  with  apathy  efforts" 
to  put  an  end  to  this  persecution. 

Every  good  member  of  the  Church  of  England  will  cry  out  against 
these  last  consequences,  which  I  have  drawn ;  and  will,  in  this  reclama- 
tion, be  joined  by  many  sensible  and  just  men  of  all  persuasions,  who 
will  say  that  those  consequences  are  not  contained  in  the  premises; 
that  the  clergy  of  the  Church  of  England  are  of  opinion  that  Catholicism 
is  an  evil,  which  they  ought  to  oppose,  but  that  although  unfortunately 
that  Church  has  always  been  united  with  the  State  in  persecution 
sometimes  severe  and  sometimes  mitigated,  still  the  true  meaning  of  the 
answers  above  recited,  is  not  to  use  unlawful  means,  or  indecent  or 
outrageous  means,  but  such  as  become  men  in  their  place,  viz.  argument, 
instruction,  prayer  and  watchfulness.  I  agree  with  them  in  this  explan- 
ation; and  I  say  that  notwithstanding  the  unfortunate  and  unseemly 
fact  of  the  English  Protestant  Church  having  always  been  maintained 
by  persecution  of  others,  especially  of  our  Church;  still  the  meaning 
of  the  passages  above  quoted  does  not  lead  to  the  necessity  of  perse- 
cution. I  need  scarcely  adduce  a  fact,  which  we  all  observe  every  day 
to  prove  that  they  do  not,  viz.  all  the  bishops  and  clergy  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  have  made  similar  declarations, 
and  still  only  one  bishop  and  a  few  priests  have  waged  this  war  upon  us. 

But  I  demand  in  fair  justice  the  benefit  of  the  same  principle  which 
I  concede ;  and  I  now  answer  the  question  which  is  put.  1.  The  Pope 
can  command  the  assistance  of  the  faithful  by  divine  right,  to  check 
the  progress  of  heresy,  by  all  lawful  means.  2.  The  Church  does 
acknowledge  the  validity  of  any  lawful  engagement  to  disobey  the  Pope. 
And  "White  has  taken  great  pains  to  no  purpose,  because  his  question 
was  contained  in  those  put  to  the  Universities,  as  may  be  seen  by  a 
reference  to  them.  It  would  be  unlawful  and  improper  for  a  Catholic, 
as  well  as  ridiculous  to  engage  maintaining  and  abetting  what  he  con- 
sidered to  be  error,  and  no  man  of  principle,  whatever  his  religion  may 
be,  could  enter  into  such  an  engagement  as  to  do  any  positive  act  for 
promoting  what  he  believed  to  be  a  delusion.  But  a  person  might 
engage,  not  to  interfere  for  its  destruction  on  a  variety  of  occasions,  or 
he  might  pledge  himself  to  abstain  from  using  certain  means,  which 
he  might  lawfully  use  had  he  not  given  such  pledges,  but  which  would 
become  unlawful  upon  his  making  the  engagement.  Thus  suppose  I  am 
prevented  the  use  of  a  certain  passage  to  my  dwelling,  lest  I  should 
remove  some  monument  which  was  offensive  to  me,  were  I  allowed  to 
come  within  reach  of  it.  Though  I  had  the  full  right  and  obligation  to 
destroy  it,  if  I  could  freely  reach  it,  I  might  when  I  found  the  avenue  so 


340  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

guarded  as  to  make  it  hopeless  for  me  to  effect  its  destruction,  and 
greatly  inconvenient  to  me  to  lose  the  right  of  passage,  make  an  en- 
gagement not  to  injure  the  monument  during  the  concession  of  the 
right  of  passage.  I  am  not  prevented  from  making  an  engagement  fo^* 
sufficient  cause,  to  refrain  from  doing  an  act  which  I  would  do  if  I 
were  free.  But  to  obtain  that  right  I  never  could  pledge  myself  to  do 
what  was  in  my  estimation  positively  bad.  Thus  the  British  Catholics 
have  uniformly  refused  to  abjure  their  own  religion  to  obtain  their 
civil  rights;  but  with  the  full  consent  and  approbation  of  the  see  of 
Rome,  they  have  sworn,  not  to  use  the  power  which  has  been  conceded 
to  them,  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  the  Protestant  Church  established, 
in  order  to  substitute  a  Catholic  establishment  in  its  stead.  Thus  dur- 
ing nearly  half  a  century  the  very  question  which  White  would  put 
as  a  substitute,  has  been  practically  answered  by  the  oaths  and  acts  of 
millions  of  Catholics,  with  the  full  approbation  of  the  see  of  Rome: 
and  upon  this  principle  of  morality,  "You  can  never  pledge  yourself 
to  do  evil,  but  you  may  sometimes  bargain  to  forego  a  lesser  duty,  that 
you  may  thereby  attain  a  greater  good." 

Bishop  Kemp  and  his  associates  are  American  citizens,  I  now  put 
to  them  this  difficulty  of  their  protege  White,  and  ask  them  before 
the  American  public,  how  they  could  as  citizens  of  our  confederated 
republics,  support  such  doctrine  as  this  book  advances.  White's  address 
to  the  British  Catholics  is  substantially  this : 

"You  believe  our  Church  to  be  erroneous,  but  we  are  established  by 
law;  if  you  are  admitted  to  the  Legislature,  you  will  endeavour  to  de- 
stroy our  establishment,  such  is  your  duty  as  good  Catholics ;  you  cannot 
act  otherwise;  we  cannot  depend  upon  any  engagement  into  which  you 
may  enter,  not  to  take  away  the  property  from  us,  to  give  it  to  your  own 
Clergy ;  w^e  therefore  tell  you,  that  if  you  are  good  Catholics,  you  ought 
not  to  go  into  a  place,  where  you  would  have  the  power  to  destroy  us, 
if  you  have  not  the  disposition  to  do  so." 

If  the  Catholics  w^ere  even  disposed  to  act  thus,  though  they  have 
sworn  not  to  act  so,  I  ask  the  American  clergy,  could  the  measure  be 
carried  by  the  votes  of  the  Catholic  members,  if  the  majority  of  the 
house  and  nation  were  not  Catholics  ?  And  if  the  majority  of  the  nation, 
as  in  Ireland,  was  Catholic,  would  the  American  Protestant  clergy  say 
that  such  a  majority  should  lose  their  civil  rights,  their  political  rights, 
and  be  oppressed  to  keep  up  a  dominant  and  domineering  Church  for 
the  minority  of  the  nation  ?  Is  this  the  doctrine  we  are  to  have  imported 
into  our  republics?  What  would  Bishop  Kemp  say  of  disqualifying  all 
the  Protestants  of  Maryland  in  order  that  a   Catholic  establishment 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  341 

should  tax  and  live  upon  the  public  of  every  denomination?  Did  he 
ever  read  or  hear  of  a  Catholic  minority  taxing  and  living  upon  a 
majority  of  persons  of  other  religions  and  telling  them,  we  shall  keep 
you  out  of  our  councils,  lest  we  might  be  forced  to  give  up  what  we 
have  acquired  and  preserved  by  force  and  persecution?  Does  France 
keep  Protestants  from  voting  upon  the  question  of  the  taxes,  and  the 
appropriation  to  support  the  Catholic  establishment,  though  that  estab- 
lishment has  neither  tythes,  nor  glebes,  nor  bishops'  lands,  nor  the 
plunder  of  monasteries,  nor  the  spoils  of  Protestant  establishments? 
Prance  is  a  bigoted  Popish  country,  because  she  treats  Protestants  with 
justice,  and  England  is  a  liberal  country,  because  she  plunders  and 
oppresses  Papists,  and  Bishop  Kemp  and  his  associates  are  liberal, 
because  they  praise  this  British  persecution.     Yours,  and  so  forth, 

B.   C. 

LETTER  XVI 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Dec.  18,  1826. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends, — White's  object,  in  introducing  the  case  of  James  II, 
King  of  England,  is  to  endeavor,  as  far  as  possible,  to  persuade  Pro- 
testants that  no  Roman  Catholic  can  conscientiously  abstain  from  perse- 
cuting a  member  of  any  other  Church.  To  effect  this,  he  not  only  mis- 
states the  facts  in  the  case  of  James,  but  he  grossly  and  fallaciously 
mistranslates  the  answer  of  Bossuet:  of  which  I  shall  give  a  correct 
version  to  accompany  this,  so  that  my  readers  may  be  able  fully  to 
estimate  the  credit  which  White  deserves. 

I  shall  give  what  he  intended  to  be  his  argument.  ' '  A  Roman  Cath- 
olic can  lawfully  do  nothing  to  favor  heresy.  But  if  he  be  a  British 
legislator,  he  must  concur  in  voting  the  sums  necessary  for  supporting 
the  Protestant  Church,  which  he  calls  heretical.  Therefore  it  will  be 
unlawful  for  him  to  do  his  duty  as  a  legislator:  Hence  he  ought  not 
to  seek  for  emancipation." 

Such  is  the  substance  of  the  reasoning  in  page  53,  and  so  forth.  I 
shall  examine  its  principle.  That  principle  is  equally  Protestant  as  it  is 
Catholic,  viz.  "It  is  unlawful  to  aid  in  the  promotion  of  error."  And 
hence  I  have  known  hundreds  of  good  members  of  the  English  and  other 
Protestant  Churches  refuse  to  give  any  aid  to  Popery.  I  have  known 
several  very  religious  members  of  different  Churches  in  South  Carolina 
upon  this  principle,  not  only  refuse  to  contribute  to  build  a  Catholic 
Church,  but  to  send  their  children  to  a  Catholic  teacher,  or  ever  to  vote 


342  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

for  any  member  of  the  Catholic  Church  for  any  office ;  because  it  would 
encourage  Popish  error,  which  is  worse  than  heresy,  it  being  Idolatry. 
I  have  known  Catholics  who  have  in  the  same  manner  reduced  the  prin- 
ciple to  like  practice.  The  principle  is  abstractedly  quite  correct,  but 
bigots  misapply  it ;  and  if  White  were  not  a  bigot  of  very  sour  feelings, 
he  never  would  have  deemed  it  possible  to  frame  such  an  argument 
upon  such  a  foundation. 

I  repeat  it;  the  principal  is  correct.  "You  cannot  lawfully  encour- 
age error."  But  you  must  do  your  duty,  and  the  discharge  of  that 
duty  is  not  the  crime  of  giving  unlawful  encouragement  to  error.  If 
you  owe  your  neighbor  one  hundred  dollars,  which  you  know,  he  will, 
upon  receiving,  apply  to  the  most  corrupting  purposes,  you  are  not 
accountable  for  his  misconduct;  nor  for  its  consequences;  nor  are  you 
authorized  to  act  dishonestly  towards  him,  and  over  prudently  in  your 
own  favor,  by  keeping  in  your  purse  what  you  so  sanctimoniously 
tremble  at  paying.  In  a  word,  your  fulfilment  of  your  duty,  is  matter 
of  strict  obligation;  his  abuse  of  his  means  is  matter  of  criminality  in 
him,  not  of  criminality  in  you.  There  was,  however,  a  class  of  saints, 
and  for  aught  that  I  know,  there  still  is,  which  would,  for  the  love  of 
God,  keep  the  money,  and  answer  the  application  for  payment  with  a 
homily  upon  the  influence  of  the  Gospel.  But  there,  men  were  not 
Roman  Catholics!  as  in  this  case,  he  who  paid  his  debt  committed  no 
crime :  so  in  the  other,  he  who  merely  discharged  his  duty,  gave  no 
encouragement  to  error.  The  British  constitution  is  said  to  be  Pro- 
testant, that  is,  in  other  words,  there  is  an  established  Church,  which 
the  constitution  says  must  be  supported. 

The  continuing  to  support  an  establishment  which  has  been  created 
by  the  government,  and  continued  during  several  years,  as  a  matter 
of  course,  is  not  forming  a  new  aid  for  error.  Nor  is  it  the  criminal 
bestowing  of  support:  because  it  is  not  given  to  encourage  error,  but 
by  virtue  of  a  contract  which  has  been  long  since  made.  Suppose  a 
man  leaves  a  piece  of  land  to  aid  a  society  which  teaches  error :  and  I 
hire  the  land.  When  I  pay  my  rent,  I  give  my  money  to  fulfil  my  eon- 
tract:  not  to  propagate  error.  The  criminal  was  he  who  originally 
devoted  the  income  to  further  the  delusion:  not  he  who  pays  what  he 
bargained  to  give  for  the  use  of  the  property. 

The  Catholic  legislator  would  be  bound  to  maintain  this  constitution, 
and  therefore  to  provide  the  means  for  supporting  bishops  and  sextons, 
as  well  as  judges  and  beadles.  But,  I  may  be  asked,  "when  the  Catho- 
lics would  form  a  majority  of  the  Lords  and  Commons,  would  they  not 
discontinue  the  vote?"     I  answer,  "that  their  vote  is  not  necessary,  for 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO    WHITE  343 

the  property  is  vested  in  the  Church  and  not  granted  by  Parliament,'' 
so  that,  the  fear  raised  by  White  as  to  the  safety  of  the  Catholic's 
conscience  in  this  case,  is  only  a  delusive  affectation.  "But  would  not 
Catholics  vote  to  take  away  the  property  from  the  Protestant  establish- 
ment in  order  to  give  it  to  a  Catholic  esablishment  ? "  I  answer  that 
although  the  Catholics  are  not  legislators,  and  therefore  not  the  ir^ajority 
of  those  houses  in  which  they  are  not  allowed  to  sit :  yet  this  possibility 
is  guarded  against,  for  they  have  sworn,  and  continue  to  swear,  that 
they  will  not  use  any  privilege  which  they  have  obtained  or  may  become 
entitled  to,  in  order  to  subvert  or  destroy  the  Protestant  Church  estab- 
lishment in  order  to  substitute  a  Catholic  establishment  in  its  stead. 
Besides,  there  is  another  security.  The  King  must  be  a  Protestant ;  and 
he  should  give  his  consent,  and  the  Protestant  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury is  his  first  privy  counsellor.  "But,  the  two  houses  might  take 
away  the  property,  and  thus  destroy  the  Protestant  establishment,  with- 
out substituting  any  other  therefor."  I  acknowledge  this  is  lawful 
and  possible,  provided  the  King  consented,  but  not  otherwise.  And 
should  the  majority  of  the  houses  be  Catholic,  the  majority  of  the  nation 
must  be  so.  When  that  comes  to  be  the  case,  the  nation  is  fully  entitled 
to  say  whether  it  will  give  to  the  clergy  of  a  minority  an  income  too 
great  to  support*  a  Church  establishment  ten  times  too  large  for  the 
whole  people.  But  it  is  folly  to  write  upon  those  chimeras  as  upon 
facts.  Allow  me,  by  a  single  instance,  to  show  the  valuelessness  of  Mr. 
White's  bigotry.  France  has  a  legislature  almost  wholly  Catholic,  the 
King  is  a  Catholic,  the  Church  establishment  is  Catholic,  several  of  the 
archbishops  and  bishops  are  Peers.  Suppose  Catholic  emancipation  fully 
conceded,  and  every  place  which  a  Catholic  could  fill,  occupied  by  mem- 
bers of  our  Church:  would  the  state  of  the  British  government  be  like 
what  we  find  in  France  as  to  the  occupancy  of  places  by  Catholics? 
Yet  this  Catholic  King,  those  Catholic  prelates,  peers  and  people,  levy 
taxes  upon  the  French  Catholics  and  Protestants,  to  support  several 
kinds  of  Protestant  clergy  and  Churches.  And  still,  they  hold  the  prin- 
ciple "that  they  ought  not  to  encourage  error."  Neither  do  they  en- 
courage it.  The  persons  who  hold  erroneous  doctrines,  are  unfortunately 
under  delusions  which  force  cannot  remove,  and  for  the  removal  of 
which  it  is  not  lawful  to  resort  to  force.  But  as  members  of  civil 
society,  they  claim  only  common  rights,  in  return  for  common  exertions ; 
those  rights  cannot  be  justly  withheld,  and  the  granting  of  them  is  not 
made  in  favor  of  error,  but  of  right.  Suppose  by  virtue  of  a  contract 
the  erroneous  party  received  more  than  its  proportion,  still  this  extra 
favor  is  now  due  by  virtue  of  the  contract,  and  can  be  no  longer  viewed 


344  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

as  the  grant  of  encouragement,  because  it  has  become  the  result  of  stip- 
ulation in  a  bargain,  and  the  terms  of  the  contract  must  be  observed. 
But  let  us  see  what  "White  says  upon  the  subject  of  King  James : 
' '  At  the  time  when  I  am  writing  this,  one  branch  of  the  Legislature 
has  declared  itself  favorable  to  what  is  called  Catholic  emancipation: 
and,  for  any  thing  I  can  conjecture,  Roman  Catholics  may  be  allowed  to 
sit  in  Parliament  before  these  letters  appear  in  public.  A  Roman  Cath- 
olic legislator  of  Protestant  England,  would,  indeed,  feel  the  weight 
of  the  difficulty  to  which  my  suggested  question  alludes,  provided  his 
attaclunent  to  the  Roman  Catholic  faith  were  sincere.  A  real  Roman 
Catholic  once  filled  the  throne  of  these  realms,  under  similar  circum- 
stances; and  neither  the  strong  bias  which  a  crown  at  stake  must  have 
given  to  his  mind,  nor  all  the  ingenious  evasions  proposed  to  him  by 
the  ablest  divine  of  the  court  of  Louis  XIV  could  remove  or  disguise  the 
obstacles  which  his  faith  opposed  to  his  political  duties.  The  source 
of  the  religious  scruples  which  deprived  James  II  of  his  regal  dignity, 
is  expressed  in  one  of  the  questions  which  he  proposed  to  several  divines 
of  his  persuasion.  It  comprises,  in  a  few  words,  what  every  candid 
mind  must  perceive  to  be  the  true  and  only  difficulty  in  the  admission 
of  Roman  Catholics  to  the  Parliament  of  these  kingdoms.  What  James 
doubted  respecting  the  regal  sanction,  a  member  of  either  house  may 
apply  to  the  more  limited  influence  of  his  vote.  He  asked  'Whether 
the  king  could  promise  to  give  his  assent  to  all  the  laws  which  might 
be  proposed  for  the  greater  security  of  the  Church  of  England?'  Four 
English  divines,  who  attended  James  in  his  exile,  answered  without 
hesitation  in  the  negative.  The  casuistry  of  the  French  court  was  cer- 
tainly less  abrupt.  Louis  XIV  observed  to  James,  that  'as  the  exercise 
of  the  Catholic  religion  could  not  be  re-established  in  England,  save  by 
removing  from  the  people  the  impression  that  the  King  was  resolved 
to  make  it  triumph,  he  must  dissuade  him  from  saying  or  doing  any 
thing  which  might  authorize  or  augment  this  fear.'  The  powerful 
talents  of  Bossuet  were  engaged  to  support  the  political  views  of  the 
French  monarch.  His  answer  is  a  striking  specimen  of  casuistic  sub- 
tlety. He  begins  by  establishing  a  distinction  between  adhering  to  the 
erroneous  principles  professed  by  a  Church,  and  the  protection  given  to 
it  ostensibly,  to  preserve  public  tranquillity."  He  calls  the  Edict  of 
Nantes,  by  which  the  Huguenots  were,  for  a  time,  tolerated,  'a  kind  of 
protection  to  the  reformed,  shielding  them  from  the  insults  of  those 
who  would  trouble  them  in  the  exercise  of  their  religion. '  It  never  was 
thought,  (adds  Bossuet)  that  the  conscience  of  the  monarch  was  inter- 
ested in  these  concessions,  except  so  far  as  they  were  judged  necessary 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  345 


for  public  tranquillity.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  King  of  England 
and  if  he  grant  greater  advantages  to  his  Protestant  subjects,  it  is 
because  the  state  in  which  they  are  in  his  kingdoms,  and  the  object  of 
public  repose,  requires  it."  Speaking  of  the  Articles,  of  the  Liturgy, 
and  the  Homilies,  "it  is  not  asked  (he  says)  that  the  king  should 
become  the  promoter  of  these  three  things,  but  only  that  he  shall  osten- 
sibly leave  them  a  free  course,  for  the  peace  of  his  subjects."  "The 
Catholics  (he  concludes)  ought  to  consider  the  state  in  which  they  are, 
and  the  small  portion  they  form  of  the  population  of  England,  which 
obliges  them  not  to  ask  what  is  impossible  of  their  king,  but  on  the  con- 
trary, to  sacrifice  all  the  advantages  with  which  they  might  vainly 
flatter  themselves,  to  the  real  and  solid  good  of  having  a  king  of  their 
religion,  and  securing  his  family  on  the  throne,  though  Catholic;  which 
may  lead  them  naturally  to  expect,  in  time,  the  entire  establishment  of 
their  Church  and  faith." 

' '  Such  is  the  utmost  stretch  which  can  be  given  to  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic principles  in  the  toleration  of  a  Church  which  dissents  from  the 
Roman  faith.  A  conscientious  Roman  Catholic  may,  for  the  sake  of 
public  peace,  and  in  the  hope  of  finally  serving  the  cause  of  his  Church, 
ostensibly  give  a  free  course  to  heresy.  But,  if  it  may  be  done  without 
such  dangers,  it  is  his  unquestionable  duty  to  undermine  a  system  of 
which  the  direct  tendency  is,  in  his  opinion,  the  spiritual  and  final  ruin 
of  men.  Is  there  a  Catholic  divine  who  can  dispute  this  doctrine?  Is 
there  a  learned  and  conscientious  priest  among  you,  who  would  give 
absolution  to  such  a  person  as,  having  it  in  his  power  so  to  direct  his 
votes  and  conduct  in  Parliament  as  to  direct  the  influence  of  Protestant 
principles,  without  disturbing  or  alarming  the  country,  would  still 
heartily  and  steadfastly  join  in  promoting  the  interest  of  the  English 
Church?  Let  the  question  be  proposed 'to  any  Catholic  university; 
and,  though  I  am  fully  aware  of  the  inexhaustible  resources  of  casuistry, 
I  should  not  fear  to  stake  the  force  of  my  argument  upon  its  honest  and 
conscientious  answer. ' ' 

I  shall  not  make  any  further  comment  upon  this  gross  misrepre- 
sentation until  after  I  shall  have  given  the  translation  of  the  opinion 
furnished  by  Bossuet.     Meantime,  I  request  of  you  to  peruse  the  original. 
Yours,  and  so  forth,  b.  c. 


346  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


LETTER  XVII 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Jan.  1,  1827. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends, — Mr.  White's  object  in  page  53  and  subsequent  pages 
of  his  Evidence,  was  to  shew  that  Catholics  must,  according  to  their 
principles,  if  vested  with  temporal  power,  in  any  country 'in  Vhich  Pro- 
testants had  Churches,  or  establishments,  use  that  power  to  deprive 
them  of  those  Churches  and  establishments,  in  order  to  stop  the  progress 
of  error,  and  that  it  would  be  unlawful  for  them  upon  their  principles 
to  refuse  obedience  to  the  Pope,  should  he  command  them  by  such  means 
to  stop  such  progress.  I  before  reminded  you  of  an  obvious  distinction 
between  lawful  and  proper  means,  and  unlawful  and  improper  means. 
I  shewed  that  the  Protestant  as  well  as  the  Catholic,  that  every  honest 
man  is  bound  to  use  the  former,  and  that  no  Pope  or  council  can  com- 
mand the  latter,  and  notwithstanding  White's  real  or  affected  ignorance 
upon  the  subject,  all  the  British  Catholics  have  sworn  and  continue  to 
swear,  all  the  Catholic  schools  of  Theology  have  taught,  and  continue  to 
teach,  that  it  would  be  sinful  in  a  Catholic  to  do  an  unlawful  or  immoral 
act  in  obedience  to  the  Pope  or  council,  or  upon  the  ground  or  under  the 
pretext  that  it  was  done  for  the  good  of  Religion,  or  the  benefit  of  the 
Church.  It  is  a  principle  as  eternal  and  as  immutable  as  God  himself, 
that  no  moral  evil,  however  venial,  may  lawfully  be  done,  to  procure 
any  benefit  however  great. 

No  order  of  a  Pope  or  council  could  justify  a  Catholic  legislator 
in  doing  an  act  of  political  injustice  to  a  Protestant,  to  stop  the  pro- 
gress of  his  error.  Upon  this  principle,  as  I  before  showed,  the  French 
government  which  is  Catholic,  gives  Churches,  and  ministerial  salaries 
and  establishments  for  theological  lectures  and  maintenance  of  scholars 
to  Calvinists,  and  to  Lutherans,  and  to  persons  who  belong  to  the  English 
Protestant  Church.  During  several  years,  the  Elector  of  Saxony  was 
a  Catholic,  and  faithfully  executed  the  constitutional  provisions  in  favor 
of  Protestants  and  afflictive  to  Catholics.  Several  other  instances  might, 
if  necessary,  be  adduced,  but  those  two  will  suffice.  It  then  is  clear 
from  principle,  and  from  example,  that  White  was  either  grossly  ignor- 
ant or  affected  fear  which  he  did  not  feel. 

But  my  charge  upon  him  is  more  serious.  It  is  that  of  falsification, 
or  what  I  can  scarcely  admit,  total  incompetence  for  his  task.  He  ad- 
duces the  example  of  James  II,  of  England,  who  lost  a  throne  because 
he  could  not  betray  his  conscience.  What  an  eulogy  does  he  pass  upon 
this  unfortunate  and  abused  monarch !— What  must  be  the  purity  of 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  347 

conscience  produced  by  a  religion  which  demands  such  sacrifices? — 
Does  it  not  appear  to  be  that  which  animated  the  first  martyrs?  Does 
it  not  exhibit  in  practice  the  principle  of  that  injunction  of  the  Saviour, 
so  often  and  so  emphatically  repeated ;  that  we  should  love  his  truth  and 
his  doctrine  better  than  any  thing  which  the  world  could  bestow,  better 
than  life  itself?  A  principle  which  does  not  palliate  ten  years  of  hypo- 
crisy, of  profligacy  and  of  sacrilege,  such  as  were  spent  by  the  cham- 
pion of  the  British  Protestant  Religion,  behind  whose  protection  Bishop 
Kemp  and  his  associates  would  place  the  Protestant  Religion  of  Amer- 
ica!— I  shall  take  another  opportunity  of  endeavoring  to  do  justice  to 
this  mistaken  though  upright  and  liberal  and  tolerant  and  conscientious 
exile  from  a  throne.  The  eulogy  of  White  though  not  intended  as  a 
testimony  in  the  favor  of  James,  will  content  me  for  the  present.  That 
eulogy  is  given  in  my  last  letter. 

I  have  charged  upon  Mr.  White  either  falsification,  or  incompetency. 
The  falsification  is  in  the  translation  of  Bossuet's  answer  in  the  case  of 
James.  I  have  had  the  original  French  inserted  in  the  Miscellany,  1 
now  give  what  I  conceive  to  be  an  exact  translation.  Of  all  men  who 
ever  wrote,  White  should  be  the  last  to  expose  himself  to  a  charge  of 
false  translation :  and  when  he  is  competent  to  teach  Mr.  Charles  Butler 
how  to  translate  Latin  into  English,  he  can  by  no  means  plead  a  special 
exemption  upon  the  ground  of  his  being  a  foreigner,  whose  native  tongue 
is  not  English.  He  tells  us,  page  25,  at  the  time  of  his  arrival  in  Eng- 
land, "I  had  learned  English  in  my  childhood,  and  could  understand 
it  at  this  time,  without  difficulty."  Page  15,  he  shews  us  that  his  father 
must  have  spoken  the  language.  In  1817,  he  published  at  Oxford  a 
series  of  lectures  in  English,  page  34.  He  is  also  the  author  of  Dohlado's 
Letters,  which  are  written  in  a  style  that  would  not  disgrace  the  pen 
of  the  poet  laureat  of  England.  To  assert  then  that  Mr.  White  could 
not  translate  into  English  with  perfect  accuracy,  any  work  from  a 
language  which  he  understood  equally  well,  would  be  absurd.  Mr. 
White  knew  French,  because  he  informs  us  that  the  reading  of  a  con- 
siderable portion  of  his  life  was  in  the  standard  works  of  that  language. 
Yet  he  has  falsified  Bossuet's  meaning  in  the  extracts  which  he  trans- 
lated, and  his  attention  was  chiefly  fixed  upon  the  portion  which  he  falsi- 
fied, and  he  founded  his  argument  upon  the  falsification.  Where  the 
Bishop  of  Meaux  writes  that  the  King  of  England  is  only  bound  to  pro- 
tect the  external  form  and  administration  of  the  Protestant  Church, 
as  distinguished  from  aiding  its  progress  in  the  minds  and  over  the 
consciences  of  his  subjects,  or  giving  to  it  the  protection  of  his  own  con- 
scientious assent.  White  makes  him  write  that  the  King  "is  ostensibly 


348  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

to  leave  that  religion  a  free  course,"  and  marks  the  word  ostensibly,  so 
as  to  fix  upon  it  the  attention  of  his  readers,  and  thus  impress  them  with 
the  idea  which  is  usually,  I  may  say  uniformly  attached  to  that  word  in 
the  English  language,  that  the  King  was  hypocritically  to  appear  to  do 
what  he  really  did  not;  whereas  the  Bishop  having  drawn  the  distinc- 
tion which  is  given  above,  between  protecting  its  external  form  and 
administration  on  the  one  hand,  and  adhering  to  its  errors,  or  aiding 
their  extension  in  the  minds  of  the  people  on  the  other,  he  says  that  the 
King  only  promises  the  first,  and  not  the  second  protection,  and  asserts 
that  he  is  really  bound  to  perform  what  he  promises:  if  this  was  not 
the  case,  where  would  be  the  necessity  of  inquiring  what  might  be  law- 
fully promised  and  performed? — ^When  White  himself  was  a  hypocrite, 
he  promised  and  professed  every  thing;  so  does  every  insincere  and 
unprincipled  person.  But  men  who  have  regard  for  their  promises  and 
oaths,  and  mean  to  perform  what  they  promise  and  swear,  will  be  cau- 
tious to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  the  oath  or  of  the  declaration.  Such 
was  the  case  here;  it  was  not  an  ostensible  but  a  real  protection  which 
was  required,  such  was  also  to  be  promised,  and  such  might  also  be 
conscientiously  given  by  preserving  the  form  and  establishment,  and  by 
keeping  the  Protestants  really  and  not  ostensibly  in  possession  of  tythes. 
Church-lands,  glebes,  offerings,  fees,  schools,  colleges,  universities  and 
offices.  How  in  the  name  of  ingenuity  itself  could  this  be  ostensible 
only?  Though  it  was  external,  it  was  real  and  not  ostensible.  It  is 
a  most  shameful  perversion :  it  is  not  surpassed  by  that  other  false  trans- 
lation of  a  passage  of  Bossuet  by  an  English  Protestant  writer,  and 
which  Doctor  Milner  exposed.  In  that  case  Bossuet  writing  of  those 
persons  who  said  that  they  were  of  the  true  Church  of  Christ,  because 
they  were  persecuted,  used  the  expression  that  toleration  "suffering 
persecution,"  was  not  a  distinctive  mark  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  and 
the  translator  kindly  gave  it  as  a  proof  of  the  persecuting  spirit  of  the 
Bishop  of  Meaux,  and  of  the  Catholic  Church,  ''toleration  (that  is 
absence  of  a  persecuting  spirit)  could  not  be  a  characteristic  of  the 
true  Church."  Yet  these  are  the  writers  who  arrogate  to  themselves 
superior  talents,  superior  information,  superior  candor,  superior  liber- 
ality, more  gentlemanly  demeanor,  than  the  Romish  ecclesiastics!  I 
call  upon  Bishop  Kemp  and  his  liberal  associates  to  exhibit  if  they  can, 
any  one  of  those  vilified  ecclesiastics  who  has  been  guilty  of  such  unbe- 
coming mistranslation,  in  defence  of  his  Church?  Have  the  American 
Catholic  clergy,  or  any  portion  of  them,  so  far  forgotten  their  own  dig- 
nity as  to  import  such  productions  as  this  from  Europe,  to  fling  with 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  349 

their  recommendation  into  the  faces  of  fellow-citizens  of  other  com- 
munions ? 

After  this  falsification,  and  after  garbling  the  document  in  the 
text,  though  by  some  fatality  for  himself,  he  placed  the  copy  in  his 
appendix,  he  in  his  remaining  paragraph  upon  the  subject,  again  eon- 
founds  what  had  been  previously  distinguished,  as  he  could  not  in  any 
other  way  arrive  at  the  semblance  of  the  conclusion  which  he  desired  to 
draw,  viz.  that  a  Catholic  ought  not  to  seek  admission  into  the  British 
parliament,  and  that  the  Protestant  ought  not  to  admit  him.  Here  he 
assumes  what  has  been  so  often  disproved,  viz.  that  a  Catholic  is  bound 
by  his  religion  to  violate  his  promise  and  do  an  act  of  political  injustice 
for  the  benefit  of  his  Church,  and  that  to  correct  the  error  of  the  Protes- 
tant he  is  bound  to  become  a  criminal.  As  to  the  duty  of  a  member 
of  the  British  parliament,  I  shall  leave  those  whom  it  concerns  to  regu- 
late [it].  I  have  but  one  object  in  view,  which  is  to  shew  that  the 
charge  of  political  dishonesty  for  the  benefit  of  Religion,  and  the  charges 
of  political  subserviency  to  the  Pope,  for  the  benefit  of  the  Church,  or 
the  diminution  of  heresy,  which  White  made  upon  the  Roman  Catholics 
of  the  whole  world,  were  both  unfounded  and  unjust.  That  object  I 
believe  I  have  attained.  I  leave  to  others  to  say  whether  a  member  of 
any  government  is  authorized  by  political  justice  to  give  to  an  hierarchy 
with  which  one  third  of  the  nation  is  not  in  communion  a  revenue  drawn 
from  the  whole  people,  and  ten  times  too  great  for  the  spiritual  neces- 
sities of  the  United  Kingdom  at  large.  I  leave  also  to  my  fellow-citizens 
to  say  whether  the  Catholics  of  the  United  States  deserved  to  have 
these  charges  made  upon  them.     Was  it  generous?     Was  it  just? 

In  page  58,  White  complains  that  the  Church  had  not  made  decisions 
enough  for  him  to  quarrel  with,  that  she  leaves  to  her  children  too 
much  freedom  of  opinion  upon  questions  of  morality.  Really  this  de- 
serves a  remark  for  its  very  novelty.  So  the  Catholic  Church  is  a  tyran- 
nical establishment  which  leaves  her  children  too  great  liberty!  It 
was  but  in  the  foregoing  page  he  made  a  Priest  deny  absolution  to  an 
imaginary  being,  a  Catholic  member  of  the  British  parliament,  for 
merely  exercising  his  own  judgment  upon  his  own  vote.  His  casuistry 
in  the  first  place,  is  as  defective  as  is  his  statement  in  the  second.  In 
his  succeeding  two  pages  he  grossly  misrepresents  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church,  arguing  from  the  exception  made  in  the  usual  grant  of  the 
Bull  of  Crusade,  that  heresy  is  worse  than  deliberate  murder,  because 
the  Priest  receives  power  to  absolve  the  penitent  murderer,  and  does  not 
receive  power  to  absolve  the  penitent  heretic.  As  well  might  he  con- 
clude, that  a  city  which  required  that  one  slightly  infected  with  the 


350  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

small  pox  should  be  kept  in  seclusion,  whilst  it  permitted  his  friends  to 
visit  a  man  dying  of  a  mortal  wound,  looked  upon  the  former  to  be  in  a 
more  desperate  state  than  the  latter.  Every  one  will  see  that  in  the  first 
place  the  seclusion  is  not  founded  upon  the  desperateness  of  the  case 
but  upon  the  danger  of  the  infection.  So  in  morality,  there  are  some 
crimes  which,  though  atrocious,  will  not  be  the  occasions  of  seduction, 
whilst  others  of  a  far  less  grade  of  immorality  are  more  pernicious  in 
their  general  and  unchecked  results.  The  object  of  the  Church  in  ex- 
pecting the  case  of  heresy,  in  those  countries  which  are  altogether  or 
almost  Catholic,  in  the  grant  of  jurisdiction,  is  not  the  punishment  of  the 
penitent,  but  the  discovery  by  the  proper  authority  of  the  sources  of 
error  that  they  may  be  removed,  and  the  ascertaining  that  the  unfortu- 
nate victim  of  delusion  has  been  thoroughly  convinced  of  his  error, 
and  is  fully  instructed  in  the  grounds  of  the  true  doctrine.  Mr.  White, 
if  he  knew  any  thing  of  theology,  must  have  been  aware  of  this,  and 
therefore  was  guilty  of  deliberate  misrepresentation ;  if  he  was  not  aware 
of  it,  Bishop  Kemp  and  his  associates  ought  not  to  have  told  the  public 
of  his  competency  for  his  task. 

As  I  know  nothing  of  "the  old  man  of  the  mountain,  or  of  the 
Prince  of  the  Assassins, "  ^°  I  can  form  no  opinion  upon  the  subject. 
But  I  shall  conclude  this  letter  with  stating  upon  Catholic  principles 
what  would  be  the  duty  of  a  Catholic  legislator  in  a  land  inhabited  by 
a  people  whose  religions  differ  as  much  as  do  the  hundred  religions  of 
the  people  of  England. 

I  shall  first  state  what  constitutes  the  crime  of  heresy.  It  is  a  wilful 
and  obstinate  denial  of  a  truth  revealed  bj^  God.  Faith  is  the  belief 
of  such  truth  founded  upon  the  divine  testimony:  Infidelity  is  the  dis- 
belief of  that  testimony,  or  the  refusal  to  submit  thereto:  Heresy,  a 
word  derived  from  the  verb  aigeo  "to  choose"  or  "to  select"  is  the 
admission  of  the  principle  that  God  has  made  a  revelation,  but  a  proud 
and  arrogant  choice  or  selection  of  some  of  the  revealed  tenets,  and  a 
wilful  and  obstinate  rejection  of  the  rest.  Mr.  White  and  his  admirers 
may,  for  aught  that  I  know,  look  upon  heresy  to  be  humility,  they  may 
consider  it  to  be  harmless  and  inoffensive  to  God:  but  I  must  avow, 
that  I  look  upon  it  to  be  highly  criminal  and  greatly  destructive  both 
of  truth  and  of  morality ;  and  any  person  who  knows  that  he  thus  chooses 
some  of  the  doctrines,  and  rejects  others  revealed  by  God,  is  in  my  esti- 
mation a  deliberate  religious  criminal  whilst  he  so  continues:  but  should 

■"  Prince  of  the  Assassins.  The  head  of  a  tribe  of  religious  fanatics  inhabiting 
the  hilly  country  of  Persia,  South  of  the  Caspian  Sea,  who  had  also  a  Lieutenant  in 
Mount  Libanus,  and  -nho  was  exterminated  by  Holagon  Khan,  A.  D.  1258. — Vid. 
Milman's  Gibbon,  Vol.  iv,  p.  253,  Harper's  Edit. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  351 

he  even  only  suspect  himself  to  be  in  this  state,  I  consider  it  to  be  his 
duty  sedulously  to  inquire  and  to  use  all  means  within  his  power  to 
discover  his  true  situation,  because  when  God  vouchsafes  to  teach  man, 
it  is  the  solemn  duty  of  man  to  use  every  effort  to  Imow  what  he  has 
taught.  If  a  person  having  laid  aside  his  prejudices,  having  earnestly 
besought  God  by  prayer  to  enlighten  and  to  guide  him  to  the  discovery 
of  truth,  and  then  honestly  and  diligently  using  the  means  which  are 
within  his  reach,  shall  follow  the  sincerity  of  his  conviction,  though  such 
a  person  might  err  in  mistaking  falsehood  for  truth,  such  error  is  invin- 
cible ignorance.  White  himself  would  not  assert  that  prejudice  ought 
to  form  a  ground  of  excuse ;  he  would  not  assert  that  sloth  or  indifference 
are  good  grounds  of  excuse,  he  would  not  assert  that  the  person  who 
omitted  using  any  opportunity  or  mode  within  his  power  for  the  dis- 
covery of  that  truth  to  which  God  commanded  him  to  adhere,  was  inno- 
cent. Nothing  then  but  invincible  ignorance  can  be  a  ground  of  excuse 
for  heresy.  If  by  "unconquerable  conviction"  White  means  invincible 
ignorance,  I  will  freely  accord  to  him  that  this  will  be  a  sufficient  excuse. 
In  answer  to  his  last  query,  "If  sincere  conviction  is  a  valid  plea  with 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  why  has  she  scattered  to  the  wind  the 
ashes  of  those  who  allowed  that  conviction  to  be  tried  in  her  inquisitorial 
fires?"  I  beg  to  observe,  that  the  structure  of  his  question  implies  a 
falsehood,  viz.  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  has  scattered  the  ashes 
and  lighted  the  fires.  A  proper  opportunity  will  occur  hereafter  for 
proving  the  truth  of  my  assertion.  I  will  add  that  from  personal  exper- 
ience, I  have  known  several  who  under  the  inuflence  of  far  less  pride 
than  would  be  requisite  in  this  case,  have  died  making  deliberate 
declarations  at  perfect  variance  with  their  sincere  conviction.  Mr. 
White  and  his  associates  must  excuse  me  for  my  avowal  of  an  opinion  in 
which  I  may  be  erroneous,  that  neither  Melancthon,  Calvin,  Grotius  or 
Usher,  had  a  ' '  learned  conviction, ' '  or  any  other  conviction,  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  religion  being  what  they  represented  it  to  be.  God,  who  is 
the  great  judge  of  conscience  and  who  alone  can  read  the  heart  of  man 
is  able  to  determine  the  question.  I  pass  no  judgment  upon  them :  but 
if  I  were  to  judge  from  what  I  have  seen,  my  testimony  would  be  un- 
favorable to  their  "learned  conviction." 

Having  thus  given  as  distinctly  as  I  could  my  remarks  upon  the 
nature  of  heresy,  and  the  contents  of  Mr.  White 's  pages,  61  and  62,  I 
shall  merely  add  that  in  a  mixed  state  of  society,  the  duty  of  a  Roman 
Catholic  legislator  is  to  be  regulated  by  the  power  which  is  conferred 
upon  him.  His  duty  is  to  legislate  only  for  the  temporal  welfare  of 
the  State,  not  upon  the  religious  concerns  of  the  people.     In  such  a 


352  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

government  as  ours,  which  happily  does  not  interfere  with  the  religion 
of  the  people,  and  where  the  people  from  whom  the  legislator  receives 
his  power,  forbid  him  to  legislate  upon  religious  concerns,  it  would  on 
his  part  be  an  usurpation,  which  would  be  criminal,  to  use  his  power 
openly  or  covertly  for  the  checking  of  heresy,  or  the  elevation  of  his 
own  Church.  The  act  would  be  dishonest.  In  America  there  cannot 
arise  any  question  upon  this  subject,  although  White's  book  to  the  unin- 
formed is  calculated  to  create  distrust  in  Catholic  candidates  for  our 
legislatures.  It  is  not  for  me  to  determine  how  far  Bishop  Kemp  and 
his  associates  intended  this  effect,  neither  is  it  for  me  to  contrast  the 
principle  here  laid  down  with  the  practice  of  others.  In  England,  the 
case  is  different:  there  the  constitution  establishes  one  denomination, 
and  the  legislator  accepting  his  place,  binds  himself  to  support  the  con- 
stitution, and  of  course  to  maintain  this  establishment.  His  duty  is  to 
observe  his  contract,  and  to  support  the  establishment.  The  Catholic 
King  and  Government  of  France,  upon  this  principle,  maintain  by  the 
grants  of  the  public  money  the  Protestant  and  the  Jewish  establishments 
of  Catholic  France.  The  morality  of  the  Catholic  Church  will  bear  the 
closest  investigation.  Strict  justice,  the  full  observance  of  contracts, 
and  their  most  extensive  construction  in  favor  of  the  party  upon  which 
the  benefit  is  to  be  conferred,  form  the  basis  of  her  moral  code  of  inter- 
course with  persons  of  all  religions.  She  looks  upon  heresy  to  be  a  great 
crime  in  those  who  are  its  original  creators  and  propagators,  she  looks 
upon  it  to  be  a  great  misfortune  in  those  who  are  its  innocent  victims. 
But  neither  their  crime  or  their  mistake  is  a  ground  for  making  them  the 
victims  of  injustice.  Her  children  never  legislated  themselves  into  the 
property  of  older  religion,  and  then  mocked,  insulted  and  persecuted 
and  calumniated  those  whom  they  plundered. 

When  Bishop  Kemp,  or  Blanco  White  shall  have  proved  this  crime 
against  Catholic  legislators,  so  far  from  holding  them  up  as  the  cham- 
pions of  liberty  and  the  models  of  religious  perfection,  I  shall  blush  for 
my  Church  until  she  shall  have  cast  them  out  from  her  communion; 
and  should  any  portion  of  the  plunder  be  found  in  my  hands,  my  con- 
science will  have  no  peace  until  I  shall  have  made  restitution;  because 
I  do  not  hold  it  to  be  more  lawful  for  me  to  rob  my  neighbor  for  his 
Protestantism,  than  it  would  be  for  him  to  fleece  me,  because  of  my 
Catholicism. 

Yours,  and  so  forth, 

B.  c. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  353 

LETTER  XVIII 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Jan.  8.  1827. 
To  the  Roman  CatJiolics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends, — In  his  sixty-second  and  subsequent  pages  of  what  he 
calls  his  Evidence,  White  has  the  following  passage: 

"I  rejoice  to  find  the  dogma  of  intolerance  branded  in  the  Boole 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  with  the  epitaph  of  detestable ;  ^^  but 
cannot  help  wondering  that  a  man  who  thus  openly  expressed  his 
detestation  of  that  doctrine  should  still  profess  obedience  to  a  See,  under 
whose  authority  the  inquisition  of  Spain  was  re-established  in  1814.  If 
Catholics  are  so  far  improved  under  the  Protestant  government  of 
England  as  to  be  able  to  detest  persecution,  by  what  intelligible  distinc- 
tion do  they  still  find  it  consistent  to  cling  to  the  source  of  the  intol- 
erance which  has  inundated  Europe  with  blood,  and  still  shows  its  old 
disposition  unchanged,  wherever  it  preserves  an  exclusive  influence? 
In  what  church  did  Spain  learn  the  necessity  of  forbidding  her  subjects, 
forever,  the  right  of  choosing  their  religious  tenets,  and  that  at  the  very 
moment  when  she  was  proclaiming  a  free  constitution?  Who  has  in- 
duced the  republican  governments  of  Spanish  America  to  copy  the  same 
odious  laws  in  their  new  codes  ? — That  Church  no  doubt,  who  looks  com- 
placently on  such  acts  and  declarations,  in  countries  where  even  her 
silence  stamps  public  doctrines  with  the  character  of  truth.  Yes;  the 
'detestable  dogma  of  religious  intolerance'  is  publicly  and  solemnly  pro- 
claimed in  the  bosom  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  without  a  single 
observation  against  it  from  the  Pope  or  Bishops  of  that  Church;  nay, 
the  legislators  themselves  are  forced  to  proclaim  and  sanction  it  against 
their  own  conviction,  because  the  mass  of  the  people  are  allowed  by  the 
Church  to  understand  that  such  are  their  duty  and  her  belief. 

"If  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  can  thus  allow  detestable  dogmas 
to  act  in  full  force  within  the  inmost  recesses  of  her  bosom,  those  Cath- 
olics who  differ  from  her  notions,  so  far  as  her  apologist,  Mr.  Butler, 
might  guide  themselves  in  religious  matters  without  the  assistance  of 
her  infallibility.  That  able  writer  allows  himself  to  be  blinded  by  the 
spirit  of  party,  when  he  labors  to  prove  that  intolerance  does  not  belong 
exclusively  to  his  Church;  and  charges  Protestants  with  persecution. 
That  Protestants  did  not  at  once  perceive  the  full  extent  of  the  funda- 
mental principle  of  the  reformation — the  inherent  right  of  every  man 
to  judge  for  himself  on  matters  of  faith — can  neither  invalidate  the 
truth  of  that  luminous  principle,  nor  bind  subsequent  Protestants  to 


Page  303,  1st  ed.     Page  254,  Am.  ed. 


354  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

limit  its  application.  It  is  a  melancholy  truth,  that  Protestants  did 
persecute  at  one  time;  but  it  is  a  truth  which  rivets  the  accusation  of 
inherent  and  essential  intolerance  upon  that  Church,  whose  erroneous 
doctrines  the  patriarclis  of  the  reformation  could  not  cast  off  at  once. 
Thanks  be  to  the  protecting  care  of  that  Providence,  which,  through 
them,  prepared  the  complete  emancipation  from  religious  tyranny  which 
Protestants  enjoy  at  this  moment;  the  infallibility  of  their  churches 
made  no  part  of  the  common  belief  on  which  they  agreed  from  the  be- 
ginning, or  the  spirit  of  intolerance  would  only  have  changed  its  name 
among  us.  The  dogma  of  an  infallible  judge  of  religious  subjects  is 
the  true  source  of  bigotry ;  and  whoever  believes  it  in  his  heart,  is  neces- 
sarily and  conscientiously  a  persecutor.  A  fallible  Church  can  use 
no  compulsion.  If  she  claims  'authority'  on  matters  of  faith,  it  is  to 
declare  her  own  creed  to  those  who  are  willing  to  be  her  members.  The 
infallible  judge,  on  the  contrary,  looks  on  his  pretended  gift  as  a  miracu- 
lous, divine  commission,  to  stop  the  progress  of  what  he  condemns  as 
an  error.  He  persecutes  and  punishes  dissenters,  not  because  they  can- 
not be  convinced  by  his  reasons,  but  for  obstinate  resistance  to  his  super- 
natural authority.  Rome  never  doomed  her  opponents  to  the  flames  for 
their  errors,  but  for  their  contumacy.  It  is  by  this  means  that  she  has 
been  able  so  often  to  extinguish  sympathy  in  the  breasts  of  her  followers ; 
for  error  excites  compassion,  while  rebellion  never  fails  to  kindle  indig- 
nation. ' ' 

In  this  extract  we  find  the  following  assertions  or  propositions 
to  be  contained,  or  palpably  insinuated,  viz : 

1.  That  the  detestation  of  intolerance  cannot  exist  in  that  Church, 
under  w^hose  authority,  the  inquisition  of  Spain  was  established  in 
1814. 

2.  That  if  the  Catholics  of  England  and  Ireland  detest  intoler- 
ance, they  ought  not  to  cling  to  the  See  of  Rome,  which  is  the  source 
of  intolerance. 

3.  That  if  the  British  and  Irish  Catholics  detest  intolerance,  they 
are  improved  by  having  been  under  their  Protestant  government. 

4.  That  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  shows  its  old  disposition  of 
persecution  unchanged,  wheresoever  it  has  exclusive  influence. 

5.  That  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  induced  Spain  and  the  South 
American  governments,  to  forbid  their  subjects  and  citizens  for  ever 
to  choose  their  religious  tenets,  at  the  very  moment  that  they  proclaimed 
free  constitutions,  and  that  this  was  an  odious  act. 

6.  That  she  did  all  this  mischief  by  her  silence;  neither  Pope  nor 
Bishop  lifting  his  voice  against  the  detestable  act. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  355 

7.  That  the  legislators  were  obliged  to  make  those  laws  against  their 
own  conviction,  because  the  Church  left  the  people  under  an  impression 
that  such  was  their  duty. 

8.  That  they  who  assert  that  intolerance  does  not  belong  exclusive- 
ly to  the  Catholic  Church  are  blinded  by  the  party  spirit. 

9.  That  the  Catholic  Church  is  answerable  for  the  persecution  of 
her  own  children  by  Protestants,  when  at  one  time  the  Protestants  did 
persecute. 

10.  That  Protestants  do  not  believe  their  Church  is  infallible,  and 
therefore  can  use  no  compulsion. 

11.  That  an  infallible  judge  of  doctrine  considers  himself  divinely 
commissioned  to  stop  the  progress  of  error. 

12.  That  Rome  never  doomed  her  opponents  to  the  flames  for  their 
errors,  but  for  their  contumacy. 

Believe  me,  my  friends,  when  in  the  sincerity  of  my  soul  I  assure 
you,  that  I  never  approached  any  subject  with  awe  and  disgust,  equal 
to  w^hat  I  now  feel  at  the  necessity  of  examining  and  exhibiting  the  result 
of  the  examination  of  those  propositions.  Would  to  God,  I  could  do  so 
without  the  harrowing  of  soul  which  is  produced  by  heartless  men  who 
force  us  to  recollect  what  we  would  strive  to  forget !  !  I  believe  that 
several  of  my  Protestant  fellow-citizens  read  these  letters.  Let  me  assure 
them  in  all  the  sincerity  of  soul,  that  I  do  not  attribute  to  them  as  a  body, 
nor  to  their  Churches,  at  present,  the  horrid  sentiments  which  if  I  were 
disposed  to  act  like  Blanco  White,  and  Bishop  Kemp,  and  Dr.  Wilmer 
and  their  associates,  I  could  with  strict  logical  justice  charge  upon  al- 
most every  Protestant  Church  in  the  United  States ;  whilst  I  shall  also 
show  that  by  no  principle  of  logic,  by  no  rule  of  right  reason,  could 
the  Catholic  Church  be  charged  with  what  those  assailants  have  thought 
proper  to  impute  to  her. 

I  would  once  for  all  address  my  Protestant  fellow-citizens  to  the 
following  effect : 

"Friends  and  Brethren, — Your  fathers  have  been  led  to  separate 
themselves  from  our  fathers,  and  to  charge  upon  them  several  religious 
errors.  Your  fathers  were  invited  to  cast  off  the  superstitions  and  the 
impostures  which  they  were  told  our  fathers  and  they  had  been  slaves  to. 
They  were  invited  to  search  the  Scriptures,  that  in  them  they  might  find 
the  knowledge  of  truth.  They  took  up  the  sacred  volume,  and  in  their 
search  for  truth,  which  is  one  and  invisible,  they  have  been  separated 
into  hundreds  of  sects,  all  contradicting  each  other.  Centuries  have 
elapsed,  and  the  progress  of  years  only  multiplies  your  divisions;  even 
you,  yourselves  have  so  far  lost  all  hope  of  discovering  in  those  sacred 


356  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

books  an  uniform  and  a  consistent  declaration  of  truth,  that  in  your  des- 
pair of  effecting  it,  you  have  adopted  the  extraordinary  conclusion  that, 
although  you  could  not  remain  in  our  communion,  because  we  held  er- 
roneous doctrine,  still  you  may  agree  to  contradict  each  other  in  harmony 
and  affection.  This  evil  is  not  of  your  own  creation.  But  whilst  you 
thus  despair  of  union,  and  are  multiplying  your  divisions  and  your  con- 
tradictions, we,  by  following  up  the  same  principle  which  kept  your 
progenitors  and  ours  during  centuries  in  a  happy  union  of  belief  and 
affection,  are  still  an  united  body,  though  spread  through  every  nation 
of  the  universe ;  and  we  still  hold  as  the  standard  of  our  faith,  not  only 
the  sacred  volume  of  the  inspired  writings,  but  every  decision  which  our 
predecessors,  during  eighteen  centuries,  have  given  for  its  explanation. 

'*We  do  not  think  that  we  ought  to  abandon  this  host  of  evidence; 
and  should  we  leave  it,  we  know  not  whither  to  have  recourse  for  any 
testimony  of  nearly  equal  value. 

"But  it  is  not  the  chief  ground  of  my  appeal  and  remonstrance, 
that  we  are  told  that  it  is  erroneous,  on  our  part,  to  hold  fast  to  this 
principle;  no,  I  complain  that  we  are  grossly  misrepresented  to  you. 
Your  fathers  and  ours  have  unfortunately  not  kept  within  the  bounds 
of  moderation,  or  of  decorum,  or  of  justice,  or  charity.  They  have  per- 
secuted each  other.  Do  not  imagine  that  I  intend  to  wound  your  feelings, 
when  I  assert  that  I  could  easily  prove  that  in  the  mutual  persecutions 
which  occurred,  and  still  are  occurring,  our  fathers  have  suffered,  and 
our  brethren  are  suffering  ten-fold  more  than  they  inflicted.  My  first 
cause  of  complaint  then  is,  that  the  Roman  Catholics  are  said  to  be  the 
sole,  if  not  the  principal,  aggressors.  My  next  complaint  is,  that  from 
inferences  sought  to  be  drawn  from  our  tenets  and  our  acts,  it  is  at- 
tempted to  be  proved  that  we  must  in  principle  be  persecutors.  Far 
be  it  from  me  to  charge  you  with  being  persecutors  upon  principle. 
On  the  contrary,  I  give  this  public  testimony  to  your  general  feelings 
of  liberality,  and  to  your  many  acts  of  kindness  to  Roman  Catholics 
in  many  parts  of  this  Union,  although  it  has  happened,  as  it  must  happen 
in  all  large  bodies,  that  there  are  amongst  you  men,  whose  virulent 
spirit  would  lead  them  to  be  persecutors,  if  they  had  the  power.  How- 
ever, as  those  arguments  which  they  use  can,  I  think,  be  best  met  by 
turning  their  principle  against  themselves ;  allow  me  to  exhibit  how 
easily  upon  that  principle  it  can  be  shown  that  Protestants  are  bound 
by  their  religious  tenets  to  persecute  Catholics.  If,  then,  we  find  that, 
although  such  a  conclusion  flows  from  your  books,  and  the  acts  of  your 
fathers;  still  it  is  neither  your  practice  as  a  body,  nor  your  disposition 
as  individuals;  we  might  obtain  from  you  in  return  a  like  acknowledg- 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  357 

ment  in  our  regard,  and  thus  the  rhapsody  of  those  mischievous  men 
who  seek  to  excite  you  against  us,  may  cease  to  produce  any  effect,  save 
that  of  placing  themselves  in  that  point  of  view  which  is  their  proper 
station. 

"In  my  deductions,  then,  although  I  shall  prove  that  your  books 
and  the  acts  of  members  of  the  Protestant  communions,  would  exhibit 
the  most  marked  spirit  of  intolerance,  my  object  is  peace  and  harmony, 
not  irritation  and  reproach,  and  I  altogether  disclaim  any  intention  of 
charging  intolerance  upon  either  any  one  Church,  or  the  aggregate  of 
the  Protestant  Churches  of  the  United  States.  But  I  desire  to  create  har- 
mony, if  I  can,  by  my  putting  to  silence,  if  possible,  those  who  charge 
the  Catholics  with  intolerance  and  persecution." 

Having  given  this  prefatory  explanation  to  my  Protestant  fellow- 
citizens,  I  proceed  to  examine  the  assertion  of  Mi*.  White's  paragraph. 

His  first  proposition  is  founded  upon  a  falsehood.  It  was  not  under 
the  authority  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  but  under  the  authority 
of  King  Ferdinand  VII,  of  Spain,  that  the  inquisition  was  established 
in  1814.  But  this  re-established  tribunal  has  not  burned,  or  hanged,  or 
beheaded  any  Protestants  as  far  as  I  could  learn.  Again,  when  that 
tribunal  was  abolished  by  the  Cortes,  and  Ferdinand  or  some  of  his 
courtiers  desired  its  re-establishment  about  two  years  since,  the  Pope  used 
all  his  influence  in  favor  of  its  suppression,  and  it  has  not  been  re- 
established. This  was  so  notorious  a  fact,  that  it  could  not  have  escaped 
White's  knowledge,  and  therefore  his  proposition  contains  an  injurious 
suppression  of  the  truth,  and  a  bold  suggestion  of  falsehood. 

Respecting  his  second  proposition,  in  so  far  as  it  assumes  that  Rome 
is  more  intolerant  than  Canterbury,  I  shall  in  the  sequel  prove  it  to  be 
a  most  unfounded  charge.  At  present,  all  the  Protestant  Archbishops 
in  the  world  vote  regularly  to  keep  in  force  a  code  of  persecution  against 
the  British  and  Irish  Catholics.  The  See  of  Rome  persecutes  no  one  on 
account  of  religion.  I  call  upon  Bishop  Kemp  and  his  associates  to  name 
the  people,  or  the  individual  now  persecuted  for  conscience'  sake  by 
the  See  of  Rome. 

The  third  assertion  is  the  most  unfortunate  which  could  have  been 
made,  because  that  government  which  has  now  during  nearly  three  cen- 
turies been  the  most  unrelenting  and  sanguinary  in  its  inflictions  upon 
the  score  of  religion  is  not  the  best  calculated  to  teach  toleration.  How- 
ever, there  is  one  meaning  which  the  isolated  proposition  might  have, 
whose  truth  I  willingly  admit,  but  that  is  not  in  the  meaning  which  it 
bears  in  Mr.  White's  context,  viz.  that  the  intolerance  of  the  Protestant 
government  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  has  created  in  the  British  and 


358  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

Irish  Catholics  an  extraordinary  detestation  of  the  principle  of  intoler- 
ance; and  as  no  person  will  more  strongly  detest  injustice  than  he  who 
being  naturally  just  has  also  been  greviously  afflicted  by  the  injustica 
of  others.  In  this  way,  indeed,  perhaps  there  has  been  strength  added 
to  the  natural  detestation  of  intolerance,  which  has  always  characterized 
the  Irish  nation,  and  which  is  common  to  British  and  Irish  Catholics. 

Respecting  the  fourth  assertion,  I  beg  leave  to  assure  the  Prelate 
and  his  associates,  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  has  no  disposition 
to  persecute,  that  it  had  not  at  any  time  such  a  disposition,  and  that  it 
does  not  show  it  in  any  one  place,  and  consequently  not  in  those  places 
where  it  has  exclusive  influence.  Let  us  go  to  Rome,  and  ask,  are  the 
Protestants  in  that  city  persecuted?  Through  all  Italy,  in  Austria,  in 
France,  that  Church  has  exclusive  influence,  and  I  defy  the  Prelate 
and  his  party  to  adduce  a  single  manisfestation  as  they  charge.  I  say 
the  same  of  Bavaria ;  I  say  the  same  of  Portugal.  I  ask  how  many  have 
suffered  persecution  for  their  religion  from  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
in  Mexico?  in  Columbia?  in  Brazil?  or  on  the  whole  continent  of  South 
America?  Let  them  name  the  Protestants  who  have  suffered,  and  I 
pledge  myself  to  name  a  plundered  and  persecuted  Catholic  in  Maryland, 
and  a  Catholic  priest  put  to  death  for  his  religion  under  Elizabeth,  for 
every  such  name  they  may  adduce.  The  American  people  are  not  to 
be  treated  like  infants.  They  are  not  to  be  terrified  with  stories  of  a 
raw-head  and  bloody  bones.  They  have  sound  sense,  keen  discrimination, 
calm  and  reflecting  understanding ;  they  are  accustomed  to  the  examina- 
tion of  evidence;  and  the  vague  and  general  and  sweeping  assertions, 
which  would  satisfy  the  mind  of  honest  John  Bull,  will  not  pass  current 
wdth  Jonathan.  I  cannot  call  upon  Mr.  "White,  who  is  not  here,  to  give 
facts ;  but  I  will  call  upon  those  who  have  linked  their  character  to  his 
assertions  to  do  so. 

It  will  be  observed,  that  I  have  omitted  Spain  in  the  above  enumer- 
ation. I  will  now  adduce  Spain  herself.  Not  many  months  ago,  the 
papers  contained  an  account  of  a  Spanish  Anto  da  fe,  and  told  us,  for 
the  discredit  of  the  nineteenth  century,  that  a  Jew  had  been  burned  for 
his  religion  in  Spain,  in  the  year  1826.  I  now  upon  the  authority  of  the 
European  journals,  pronounce  this  to  be  a  vile  fabrication  of  the  rem- 
nant of  French  Infidels,  who,  not  content  with  having  made  their  own 
fine  country  the  prey  of  wild  anarchy,  because  of  their  hatred  to  relig- 
ion, now  endeavor  to  assail  the  Church  in  Spain,  under  the  pretext  of  re- 
forming the  government.  I  ask,  then,  what  Protestant  has  suffered  per- 
secution in  Spain?  I  shall  give  you  names  upon  names  from  England, 
from  Ireland,  from  Switzerland,  and  from  other  places.     I  call  upon 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    "WHITE  359 

those  good  men  to  show  me  in  this  last  quarter  of  a  century  any  case  of 
Catholic  persecution  of  Protestants,  in  any  part  of  the  world,  to  equal  the 
single  case  of  Mr.  Haller,  in  Switzerland. 

The  fourth  assertion  is  a  vague,  unsupported  charge,  which  I  am 
prepared  to  rebut,  when  an  attempt  shall  be  made  to  support  it  by  proof. 

The  fifth  asertion  has  more  semblance  of  truth  than  has  any  of  the 
others.  It  is  true  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  teaches,  that  whilst 
man  is  free  to  adopt  apy  civil  constitution  which  may  be  most  useful 
to  the  general  body,  she  declares  that  it  now  is,  and  ever  will  be  unlaw- 
ful for  any  man,  or  set  of  men  to  choose  which  of  the  revealed  tenets 
he  will  preserve,  and  which  he  will  reject.  It  is  a  principle  of  natural 
reason  that  man  has  no  right  to  reject  truth  and  choose  error,  because 
adherence  to  truth  is  one  of  his  fundamental  and  original  obligations. 
It  is  also  a  principle  of  Christianity  that  every  tenet  given  by  Christ  is 
true.  It  necessarily  follows  that  although  man  may  be  at  liberty  to 
choose  his  form  of  civil  government,  he  has  no  right  of  choice  and  never 
can  have  such  right  respecting  the  tenets  of  religion  which  God  has  re- 
vealed. Although  therefore  I  do  not  admit  the  fact  that  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  induced  Spain  and  South  America  to  forbid  this  choice, 
I  am  satisfied  to  assume  all  the  consequences  of  admitting  that  they  were 
so  induced.  I  would  advise  the  persons  who  adopt  Blanco  White's  as- 
sertions to  make  the  same  charge  upon  North  Carolina  and  New  Jersey, 
which  allow  no  choice  of  Catholicism  without  disqualification. 

It  is  a  very  extraordinary  mode  of  persecution  to  be  silent,  yet  this 
is  the  extent  of  the  sixth  assertion.  Great  Britain  exhibits  it  in  another 
mode,  and  when  I  come  to  contrast  Protestant  persecution  with  Catholic, 
we  shall  find  that  the  Protestant  Churches  knew  how  to  speak.  If  the 
Church  should  speak  against  persecution,  it  would  be  then  perhaps 
charged,  if  her  advice  was  followed,  that  the  people  were  priest-ridden. 
I  once  knew  a  parish  priest  in  Ireland,  who  was  in  danger  of  being 
hanged  because  he  interfered  successfully  with  some  Catholic  insurgents 
and  saved  the  life  of  a  Protestant  opponent,  upon  whom  they  were  about 
to  execute  very  summary  justice  or  injustice.  It  was  said,  that  other 
Protestant  and  Catholic  loyalists  had  been  put  to  death,  and  it  was  evi- 
dent that  this  priest,  as  he  saved  one  man  whom  he  saw,  could,  if  he 
would,  have  saved  those  whom  he  did  not  see;  as  he  did  not,  he  was 
guilty  of  their  blood,  and  ought  to  be  hanged.  Upon  the  next  applica- 
tion of  Catholics  for  emancipation,  it  was  argued  in  Parliament  from  a 
few  facts  of  this  description,  that  the  Catholics  ought  not  to  be  eman- 
cipated, because  they  were  so  far  slaves  to  their  priests  that  they  were 
unfit  for  freedom.     A  Protestant  friend  to  emancipation,  observed  in 


360  CONTEOVERSY  Vol. 

jest  to  one  of  his  acquaintances,  that  he  would  advise  the  priests  to  inform 
their  flocks  that  there  was  no  chance  of  their  obtaining  justice  until  they 
violated  every  law  of  the  decalogue,  and  every  ordinance  of  the  Church, 
to  show  their  fitness  for  freedom.  This  is  a  miserable  subterfuge;  we 
shall  pass  to  the  next. 

In  sober  sadness,  I  would  ask,  can  those  men  who  join  White  in 
complaining  that  a  legislator  has  conformed  to  the  will  of  his  constitu- 
ents, be  American  citizens?  Thus,  what  is  the  jet  of  this  proof  of  perse- 
cution? The  people  tell  their  legislators,  that  they  want  no  choice  of 
religious  tenets ;  the  legislators  adopt  the  language  of  the  people  in  their 
enactment.  Who  has  been  persecuted?  Is  it  the  people  who  call  for 
the  article  ?  Is  it  the  legislator  that  enacted  it  ?  Upon  what  evidence  is 
it  stated  that  this  was  done  against  the  conviction  of  those  who  did  it? 
There  is  no  proof  of  the  truth  of  the  assertion,  but  there  is  prima  facie 
evidence  of  its  falsehood :  and  the  principle  of  the  complaint  [contained 
in  it]  is  a  direct  attack  upon  the  rights  of  the  people. 

I  have  already  made  this  letter  so  long  that  I  do  not  wdsh  to  enter 
upon  any  examination  of  the  remaining  assertions  until  my  next. 

Yours,  and  so  forth, 

B.  c. 

LETTER  XIX 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Jan.  15,  1827. 
To  the  Roman  CatJiolics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends, — I  shall  dwell  very  slightly  at  present  upon  the  eighth 
assertion  in  the  passage  which  I  quoted  from  White's  work,  viz.  "That 
they  who  assert  that  intolerance  does  not  belong  exclusively  to  our  Church 
are  blinded  by  party  spirit."  The  proposition  is  divisible  into  these 
parts.  I.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  is  intolerant.  If  the  meaning  of 
this  is,  that  she  cannot  tolerate  that  error  should  be  taught  as  truth,  I 
am  very  free  to  admit  its  correctness,  and  that  of  the  other  parts,  be- 
cause indeed,  and  she  only  makes  it  a  condition  for  her  communion 
that  you  shall  receive  all  truth  and  reject  all  error :  whilst  almost  every 
other  Church,  with  truth  and  error  before  you,  allows  you  to  select  pretty 
freely.  In  general  there  are  some  tenets  which  each  peculiar  division 
insists  upon,  and  some  others  w^hich  it  requires  you  to  reject;  but  as 
respects  the  great  bulk  of  doctrine  you  may  please  yourself.  Thus  the 
Episcopalian  Protestant  requires  that  the  order  and  character  and  gov- 
ernment of  Bishops  be  recognized,  but  as  regards  the  doctrine  of  the 
Eucharist,  each  person  is  left  free  to  choose  any  one  of  the  variety  of 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  361 

methods  which  have  been  devised  to  explain  the  words,  "This  is  my 
body."  Neither  is  it  necessary  to  conform  to  any  particular  standard 
as  to  a  variety  of  other  doctrines  concerning  which  it  is  acknowledged 
specific  tenets  were  taught  by  the  Saviour.  But  this  is  not  what  is 
meant  by  the  intolerance  which  White  and  his  abettors  charge  upon  the 
Catholics  exclusively :  the  word  in  its  context  means  persecution,  or  the 
infliction  of  temporal  pains  or  penalties.  I  then  deny  that  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  does  inflict  persecution  for  errors  in  faith,  although 
Roman  Catholic  temporal  governors  and  legislators  did  at  times  inflict 
them,  not  generally  for  error,  but  for  its  consequences  to  civil  society. 
White  himself  says  that  Rome  never  doomed  her  victims  to  the  flames 
for  their  errors. 

The  second  part  of  the  assertion  is :  Our  Church  only  was  thus  in- 
tolerant. I  have  denied  that  the  Church  persecuted;  it  is  not  my  bus- 
iness to  prove  the  negative,  it  is  their  business  to  prove  the  truth  of  their 
assertion ;  when  they  attempt  it,  I  shall  meet  them,  if  God  spares  my  life. 
Now  I  assert  that  Protestant  governments  were  and  are  intolerant. 

I  shall  not  adduce  the  examples  of  ages  long  gone.  I  shall  not 
leave  Bishop  Kemp  much  trouble.  I  say  the  Protestant  government  of 
Maryland  is  intolerant.  I  say,  the  Protestant  colonial  governments  of 
New  England  and  Virginia,  and  the  Carolinas,  of  Georgia,  and  of  New 
York,  were  intolerant.  At  this  day  the  Protestant  governments  of 
North  Carolina  and  of  New  Jersey  are  intolerant.  In  Europe  the  Cath- 
olic government  of  France  is  tolerant,  the  Protestant  government  of  Eng- 
land is  persecuting.  I  will  not  go  farther  at  present,  though  I  could 
add  to  the  catalogue  at  each  side.  With  those  facts  before  their  eyes, 
how  could  those  pastors  of  Churches,  make  to  the  American  people, 
through  Blanco  White,  that  third  part  of  their  assertion,  that  the  declara- 
tion of  those  facts  could  be  made  only  by  persons  blinded  by  party  spirit? 
I  apprehend  my  readers  will  think  the  party  spirit  might  be  found  on 
the  other  side. 

The  ninth  assertion  is  indeed  the  most  extraordinary  that  ever  is- 
sued from  the  pen  of  any  writer.  When  it  became  too  evident  for  the 
most  hardy  to  deny,  that  Protestant  reformers  and  governments  did 
persecute  Catholics  and  each  other,  the  miserable  subterfuge  was  taken 
of  asserting  that  this  was  done  only  by  the  patriarchs  of  the  reforma- 
tion, who  had  not  sufficiently  laid  aside  the  bad  principles  of  Popery, 
and  thus  Popery,  and  not  Protestantism,  was  justly  chargeable  with  the 
atrocity.  Maclaine,  in  a  note  which  he  appends  to  his  translation  of 
Mosheim,  gives  it  as  the  excuse  for  Calvin's  procuring  the  burning  of 
Servetus.     The  assertion  is  one  of  those  whose  very  boldness  almost  as- 


362  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

tounds  so  as  to  unfit  the  mind  for  examining  its  foundation:  however 
it  is  one  whose  very  absurdity  is  so  apparent,  that  we  need  only  con- 
template, we  need  not  reason  for  its  refutation.  In  whom  is  the  spirit 
of  Protestantism  to  be  founded,  if  not  in  Luther,  in  Calvin,  in  Cranmer, 
in  Beza,  in  Knox?  Will  Bishop  Kemp  and  his  associates  blush  for  the 
conduct  of  their  leaders?  Surely  those  great  lights  of  religion  are  not 
to  be  called  Roman  Catholics,  whilst  they  endeavor  to  demolish  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church?  [In  this  case,]  they  would  now  be  rejected  by  both 
Catholics  and  Protestants.  Suppose  in  addition  to  all  the  crimes  im- 
puted to  us,  or  if  they  will,  committed  by  us  or  our  forefathers,  we  take 
the  crimes  of  their  patriarchs  upon  our  shoulders;  still  an  enormous 
load  remains  to  be  disposed  of.  Did  the  persons  who  persecuted  the 
English  Puritans,  bring  their  principles  from  our  Church?  Did  the 
Puritans  who  persecuted  the  Episcopalians,  bring  their  principles  from 
our  Church?  Was  it  from  our  Church  they  whom  the  Maryland  Cath- 
olics gave  a  place  of  refuge  from  their  mutual  destroyers,  and  elevated 
to  an  equality  with  themselves,  learned  to  unite  against  their  generous 
hosts,  and  repay  their  affection  by  a  plundering  persecution?  Was  it 
our  Church  taught  the  English  nonconformists  to  persecute  the  Bishops, 
and  those  Bishops  and  their  adherents  to  persecute  the  non-conformists? 
Was  it  our  Church  taught  them  both  to  unite  in  devising  against  herself 
the  most  atrocious  code  of  systematic  persecution  that  any  legislator 
[has  ever]  enacted,  or  any  savage  executed?  Is  it  the  Catholic  Church 
which  teaches  the  British  house  of  Lords  to  continue  to  persecute  her 
own  children?  Let  those  questions  be  answered  before  the  assertion  be 
again  made  without  a  blush.  But  there  is  a  disingenuousness  in  the  ad- 
mission of  the  writer,  which  is  more  discreditable  than  even  if  he  had 
been  silent.  "When  at  one  time  the  Protestants  did  persecute."  Let 
him  name  a  day  from  the  origin  of  the  secession  from  our  Church,  and 
their  obtaining  the  aid  of  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse  Cassel,  and  other 
princes,  to  the  present  day,  on  which  they  did  not  persecute  more  or  less 
extensively.  Thus  the  one  time,  began  three  centuries  ago,  and  God 
only  can  say  when  it  will  terminate. 

The  tenth  is  but  the  assertion  of  a  principle,  as  flowing  from  an 
acknowledged  fact;  the  truth  of  which  is  freely  admitted,  viz.  "Prot- 
estants do  not  believe  their  Church  infallible,  and  therefore  can  use  no 
compulsion."  I  will  only  suggest  the  correct  conclusion,  "and  therefore 
ought  not  to  use  compulsion."  In  the  name  of  all  that  is  extraordinary, 
how  can  a  Protestant  charge  a  Catholic  with  error,  if  neither  that  Protest- 
ant, nor  his  Church,  is  infallibly  certain  of  what  is  truth?  How  can  one 
Protestant  say  that  another  errs  or  mistakes,  when  he  has  no  certainty 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO   WHITE  363 


that  he  is  himself  right?  Upon  what  principle  do  the  Constitutions  of 
North  Carolina  and  New  Jersey  exclude  Catholics  from  offices  ?  Yet  we 
have  before  us  abundant  evidence  of  three  centuries  of  persecution  inflict- 
ed by  Protestants  upon  Papists  for  their  errors !  !  !  "We  shall  see,  at  an- 
other time,  the  pretty  names  which  we  are  called  in  confessions  of  faith 
and  books  of  homilies,  and  catechisms  printed  and  published  in  the 
United  States,  by  the  highest  ecclesiastical  authorities  of  several  Protest- 
ant denominations,  within  the  few  years  of  the  present  century. 

But  this  assertion  is  made  by  the  very  man  who  tells  the  parliament 
of  England,  that  the  Duke  of  Norfolk  ought  not  to  be  admitted  to  his 
seat  amongst  the  peers  of  England,  because  he  is  a  Roman  Catholic. 
Shall  I  be  answered  that  I  am  blinded  by  party  spirit  if  I  say  this  is 
intolerance  and  inconsistency?  This  is  the  man  who  stated  the  necessity 
of  a  political  incarceration  for  the  fellow-countrymen  and  fellow-religion- 
ists of  his  ancestors,  because  they  would  not  apostatize  from  the  Roman 
Catholic  religion.  Shall  I  be  told  that  I  am  blinded  by  party  spirit, 
if  when  I  see  a  Protestant  government  and  a  Protestant  hierarchy  reduce 
the  principle  to  practice,  I  say,  that  intolerance  does  not  belong  exclusive- 
ly to  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  ?  What  a  multiplicity  of  contradictions 
is  he  involved  in,  who  undertakes  to  defend  a  bad  cause?  Did  the  Right 
Reverend  and  reverend  approbators  give  their  attention  to  this  passage  ? 
Will  they  understand  to  reconcile  contradictions  ? 

The  eleventh  assertion  is,  ''that  an  infallible  judge  of  doctrine  con- 
siders himself  divinely  commissioned  to  stop  the  progress  of  error."  I 
shall  upon  this,  remark  that  the  judicial  and  the  executive  powers  are 
not  always  united ;  hence  it  does  not  follow  that  because  the  Church  has 
received  a  divine  commission  to  decide  with  infallible  certainty  as  to 
what  doctrine  God  has  revealed,  she  has  also  a  divine  commission  to  exe- 
cute the  process  for  checking  the  error  in  any  other  way  than  by  her 
judicial  decision.  But  though  White's  logic  is  bad,  yet  in  truth  the 
Church  does  hold  a  divine  commission  to  execute  the  sentence  of  the 
judicial  tribunal.  But  another  very  obvious  question  remains,  viz.  To 
what  can  that  sentence  extend?  I  assert  that  it  cannot  extend  to  life, 
or  to  limb,  or  to  any  compulsory,  corporeal  infliction,  or  to  any  civil 
pains  or  disfranchisements,  or  to  any  pecuniary  mulct.  The  authority 
which  the  Church  has  and  claims  is  purely  spiritual,  and  these  are  in- 
flictions by  virtue  of  temporal  power,  which  the  Church  does  not  possess 
or  claim,  except  by  compact  or  concession. 

The  infallible  judge  of  doctrine  is  then  divinely  commissioned  to 
stop  the  progress  of  error,  by  spiritual  power,  and  not  by  any  persecu- 
tion or  temporal  or  civil  punishment.    If  the  good  gentleman  will  pro- 


364  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


duce  to  nie  any  canon  of  the  Church  which  decides  that  it  is  our  doc- 
trine that  the  Church  or  council  has  the  power  of  inflicting  penalties  of 
such  a  nature,  let  them  be  produced ;  until  they  are  so  produced,  let  the 
charge  be  considered  not  proved,  denied,  unfounded. 

Here,  though  I  would  by  no  means  be  thought  to  justify  or  to  palliate 
the  acts  of  a  persecutor  because  he  was  a  Catholic,  I  may  very  clearly 
point  out  an  enormous  aggravation  which  necessarily,  from  the  very 
nature  of  the  case,  and  by  White's  avowal,  marks  the  crime  of  the  Pro- 
testant persecutor.  The  Catholic  having  the  testimony  of  truth  from 
what  he  believes  to  be  an  infallible  tribunal,  has  no  doubt  of  the  cor- 
rectness of  his  own  doctrine  and  is  certain  that  his  opponent  is  in  error. 
When  he  persecutes  this  opponent,  he  is  convinced  that  if  even  by  this 
mode  he  can  procure  his  change  of  belief  he  will  do  the  sufferer  a  spirit- 
ual good:  and  he  feels  that  he  is  only  endeavoring  to  eradicate  error, 
and  to  establish  truth.  The  Protestant  persecutor,  on  the  other  hanJ, 
having  no  infallible  guide,  is  liable  to  err:  he  cannot  be  certain  that 
he  holds  the  true  doctrine,  it  is  possible  the  truth  may  be  on  the  side 
of  the  sufferer.  Thus  he  is  exposed  to  the  hazard  of  wresting  the  truth 
of  God,  and  banishing  his  doctrine  from  the  earth  as  far  as  in  him  lies. 
I  would  call  each  persecutor  a  criminal,  but  White  himself  must  ac- 
knowledge that  the  Protestant  is  far  more  criminal,  not  because  of  the 
greater  liberality  of  his  Church,  which  we  shall  find  not  to  be  the  case ; 
but  because  he  acts,  not  from  a  plain  certainty  that  his  is  the  cause  oC 
truth  and  of  God,  because  for  that,  he  must  claim  to  be  infallible;  but 
from  his  attachment  to  perhaps  an  erroneous  opinion. 

In  the  case  of  Great  Britain  the  crime  of  the  Protestant  is  still 
farther  aggravated.  The  Catholic  doctrine  was  universally  prevalent,  it 
was  handed  down  from  generation  to  generation  as  what  Christ  had 
taught,  it  was  conformable  to  what  the  great  bulk  of  Christendom  had 
received  from  preceding  generations,  and  all  testified  to  have  been  the 
system  established  by  the  Redeemer:  the  Protestants  introduced  what 
was  then  a  novelty,  asserting  that  it  was  what  had  originally  been 
given,  but  subsequently  lost;  and  to  support  their  assertion  they  gave 
their  opinion  that  such  was  the  meaning  of  the  scriptures,  avowing  that 
in  this  opinion  they  might  be  under  a  delusion,  because  they  were  not 
infallible.  The  Catholics  told  them  that  in  fact  they  were  mistaken  in 
the  interpretations  which  they  gave  the  text;  and  that  they  not  only 
had  the  testimony  of  their  progenitors,  and  the  bulk  of  Christendom  to 
support  this  assertion,  but  that  they  had  the  judicial  decision  of  the 
tribunal  which  from  the  earliest  ages  had  been  considered  the  infallible 
witness  of  the  proper  meaning  of  the  Scriptures,  in  their  own  favor. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO    WHITE  365 


But,  aided  by  the  civil  power,  those  very  Protestants  who  admit  the  pos- 
sibility of  their  error,  persecute  the  Catholics  who  say  they  cannot  be 
wrong,  because  they  will  not  abandon  this  host  of  evidence  to  embrace 
opinions  which  they  look  upon  as  erroneous,  and  whose  very  orignators 
and  abettors  avow  [that  they]  might  possibly  be  wrong.  Yet  White  vin- 
dicates this  process,  and  still  declaims  against  persecution ;  and  I  blush 
to  add;  his  book  is  published  with  official  approbation  in  the  United 
States,  by  men  who  would  be  considered  liberal  and  charitable !  !  ! 

White's  twelfth  assertion  was,  "that  Rome  never  doomed  her  op- 
ponents to  the  flames  for  their  errors,  but  for  their  contumacy."     So, 
then.  White  contradicts  all  those  who  assert  that  Rome  burns  people  for 
their  erroneous  doctrines!     Really  this  from  him  is  a  very  precious  ad- 
mission.   Why  I  have  read  productions  which  are  as  firmly  believed  as 
is  the  Gospel  by  millions  of  our  fellow-citizens,  relating  the  horrid  suf- 
ferings of  persons  burned  for  their  imputed  errors,  by  Rome;  and  I 
have  no  doubt  but  honest  John  Bull,  who  really  has  a  soft  heart,  has 
shed  as  many  tears  as  would  extinguish  all  the  fires  of  all  the  auto  da  fes 
of  Spain  and  Italy  over  the  detail  of  those  sufferings.     How  many  a 
thunderer  from  stump  or  pulpit,  at  our  own  side  of  the  Atlantic  has 
horrified  his  auditory  by  the  appalling  recital?    How  general  is  the  im- 
pression at  this  very  moment  through  these  States,  that  Rome  would  if 
she  could  burn  every  one  who  holds  what  she  calls  error?     But  now 
White  tells  us  that  she  never  doomed  them  to  flames  for  their  error !  !  ! 
But  she  did  it  for  their  contumacy.    Here  then  I  close  with  the  abettors 
and  applauders  of  White,  and  I  ask  Bishop  Kemp  to  furnish  the  public 
with  the  name  of  any  one  person  of  the  religion  professed  by  him  or 
by  any  one  of  his  associates,  whom  Rome  ever  doomed  to  the  flames.    I 
wish  to  meet  the  opponents  of  my  Church  openly  and  plainly  upon 
fair  ground,  before  the  American  public.     Before  that  tribunal  I  love 
to  plead :  for  although  the  current  of  public  opinion,  and  of  public  feel- 
ing is  strongly  running  against  my  side  of  the  question,  I  know,  that  if 
I  can  once  get  the  mind  of  America  to  examine  the  case  fully  and  fairly, 
I  shall  have  ample  justice.     Here  then  is  a  bold  statement  that  Rome 
has  doomed  her  opponents  to  the  flames.     The  assertion  has  been  made 
so  frequently  and  in  so  many  ways,  as  to  create  upon  the  public  mind 
the  impression  that  this  is,  or  at  least  was  an  usual  occurrence,  that  it 
was  systematic  and  flowing  from  principle.    If  true,  it  is  susceptible  of 
proof :  that  proof  is  easy :  it  consists  merely  in  enumerating  names,  and 
relating  the  circumstances.     I  now  call  publicly  for  the  proof.     What 
are  the  names  of  those  Protestants  or  other  religious  opponents  whom 
Rome  condemned  to  the  flames?     What  contumacy  arising  from  error 


366  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

did  they  exhibit?  What  was  the  alleged  error  of  the  sufferer?  Under 
what  Pope,  and  in  what  year  was  he  doomed  to  the  flames?  Was  he 
burned?  In  what  credible  history  is  the  statement  to  be  read?  I  call 
upon  Bishop  Kemp  and  his  associates,  and  to  them  I  say,  "produce 
your  proof,  or  be  silent,  and  convicted  of  having  made  a  horrible  charge 
which  you  cannot  substantiate,  a  charge  which  is  untrue.  I  charge  you 
with  having  calumniated  the  Roman  government,  and  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic Church.  The  Editors  of  the  Miscellany  have  promised  to  insert 
your  specifications  in  answer  to  my  questions,  if  you  furnish  them: 
thus  you  can  have  no  excuse  for  your  neglect,  neither  is  it  a  trivial  and 
an  unimportant  concern,  that  you  have  wantonly  assailed  by  the  re- 
publication and  adoption  of  White's  calumnies,  more  than  two  hundred 
thousand  of  your  fellow-citizens.  Give  then  the  names  and  the  par- 
ticulars, and  save  your  names  from  the  result  of  your  charge  and  your 
neglect;  neither  can  it  be  an  excuse  for  you,  that  I  do  not  affix  my 
name  to  this  demand ;  that  name,  humble  as  it  is,  shall  never  be  withheld 
when  circumstances  may  require  its  manifestation ;  for  the  present  it 
is  enough  that  you  have  assailed  a  body  of  which  I  am  one,  and  you 
are  answerable  to  every  or  any  one  of  us,  until  you  shall  have  proved 
that  we  are  guilty,  and  that  you  are  innocent.  You  have  not  only  as- 
persed our  moral  character,  and  flung  contumely  upon  our  understand- 
ings; but  you  have  endeavored  to  exhibit  us  as  monsters,  unfit  for  the 
participation  of  those  rights  and  liberties  which  we  hold  in  common 
with  yourselves.  You  have  done  this  to  a  body  of  which  I  am  an  indi- 
vidual member,  and  I  call  upon  you  for  the  proof  of  one  of  the  most 
trivial  of  your  assertions.  Your  respect  for  own  character  demands 
from  you  the  proof,  if  you  possess  it.  You  have  but  to  write  and 
transmit  it,  and  it  shall  be  published." 

I  have  thus  disposed  for  the  present  of  the  passage  so  far  as  re- 
gards your  own  Church.  It  is  time  before  I  enter  upon  other  topics  to 
try  the  Churches  of  some  of  the  Protestant  champions,  by  the  same  prin- 
ciple which  they  have  used  for  our  annoyance.  This  I  shall  do  in  my 
next  letter,  promising  that  I  shall  lean  very  lightly  upon  them,  unless 
I  should  see  good  cause  for  being  more  severe. 

Yours,  and  so  forth,  b.  c. 

LETTER  XX 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Jan.  22,  1827. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends, — In  this  letter,   I  shall  lay  before  you  a  very  few 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  367 

facts,  and  refer  to  a  few  documents,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  how 
easily,  if  we  were  so  disposed,  we  might  treat  the  Churches  of  our  op- 
ponents as  they  are  in  the  habit  of  treating  ours ;  and  perhaps,  unpleas- 
ant as  the  experiment  is,  we  may  find  that  carrying  the  war  into  their 
own  dominions,  would  more  speedily  insure  for  us  an  honorable  peace, 
and  reduce  to  silence  those  who  have  no  charitable  disposition  towards 
us.  I  shall  begin  with  the  religion  of  the  file-leader  of  our  opponents. 
Bishop  Kemp  states,  that  in  spiritual  concerns  his  religion  is  the  same 
as  that  of  the  Church  of  England.  Suppose  I  were  to  assert  that  the 
detestation  of  intolerance  cannot  exist  in  that  Church  under  whose  au- 
thority the  Catholics  were  persecuted  in  the  year  1826,  and  then  pro- 
duce the  penal  laws  of  the  British  government  against  Catholics,  which 
laws  the  commons  of  Great  Britain  desired  to  have  repealed,  and  the 
clergy  petitioned  to  have  continued,  and  which  the  Archbishops  and 
Bishops  of  the  Church  of  England  exerted  themselves  successfully  to 
keep  in  force.  I  would  add  to  this,  the  fact,  that  Bishop  Kemp  and 
several  other  clergymen  of  this  Church  recommended  to  the  American 
public  a  book  published  in  England  in  the  previous  year,  the  object  of 
which  was  to  call  upon  the  legislature  of  England  to  continue  the  per- 
secution, and  to  justify  its  intolerance.  Can  the  leader  of  our  opponents 
make  out  against  the  Catholics  a  case  like  this?  Did  the  French  Cath- 
olic clergy  petition  their  legislatures  to  withhold  any  of  their  rights 
from  the  French  Protestants?  Did  the  Archbishops  and  Bishops  of 
France  who  are  Catholics,  vote  against  granting  equal  rights  to  their 
Protestant  fellow  subjects?  Did  they  not  vote  in  favor  of  such  grants, 
and  did  they  not  give  their  consent  to  the  paying  of  the  Protestant 
clergy,  and  to  granting  in  several  instances  to  the  Protestants  Churches 
which  had  been  built  with  the  money  of  Catholics  for  Catholic  worship : 
whilst  in  Ireland  the  Catholics  are  by  force  deprived  of  the  Churches 
which  their  ancestors  built,  and  which  are  capable  of  containing  the 
thousands  of  Catholics,  who  are,  for  want  of  better  accommodation, 
obliged  to  kneel  in  the  fields,  and  in  the  streets  outside  their  own  build- 
ings, which  are  far  too  small  and  too  few  for  their  niunbers;  whilst 
in  the  edifices  from  which  they  have  been  driven,  sometimes  a  dozen, 
sometimes,  perhaps,  one  hundred  persons  are  seen  scattered  over  an 
area  in  which  they  appear  to  be  lost.  In  the  Cathedrals  of  Dublin, 
which  are  the  best  attended,  only  that  part  which  the  Catholics  used  as 
the  choir  and  sanctuary,  are  occupied  by  the  Protestants,  who  have  the 
present  possession,  and  very  frequently  that  portion  is  not  half  filled 
with  the  occupants  of  pews,  and  the  vast  aisles  and  transepts  which 
were  destined  to  accommodate  the  laity,  are  a  gloomy  desert,  separated 


368  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

from  this  diminished  place  of  worship,  whilst  large  buildings  erected 
by  the  Catholics  have  a  succession  of  masses  from  day-break  till  the 
afternoon,  in  order  to  afford  the  opportunity  of  successive  attendance  to 
seven  or  eight  congregations,  who  are  crowded  together  upon  the  floors, 
in  the  galleries,  and  the  streets  in  the  vicinity.  Is  it  a  spirit  of  toler- 
ation which  deprives  the  Catholics  of  their  Churches,  the  possession  of 
which  is  a  standing  reproach  to  the  unjust  retainers? 

Suppose  I  desired  to  be  as  unjust  towards  members  of  the  as- 
sociate Church  and  the  reformed,  as  some  of  their  ministers  who  sent 
forth  Blanco  White's  book,  were  to  us.  I  need  only  take  their  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  published  in  1813,  by  Woodward,  in  Philadelphia, 
and  copy  therefrom  "the  solemn  league  and  covenant"  which  is  found 
in  page  411 — a  very  few  extracts  from  which  I  shall  give  here. 

They  swear,  "II.  That  we  shall  in  like  manner,  without  respect  of 
persons,  endeavor  the  extirpation  of  Popery,  Prelacy,  (that  is.  Church 
government  by  archbishops,  bishops,  their  chancellors,  and  commis- 
saries, deans,  deacons,  and  chapters,  archdeacons,  and  all  other  ec- 
clesiastical officers,  depending  on  that  hierarchy,)  superstition,  heresy, 
schism,  profaneness,  and  whatsoever  shall  be  found  to  be  contrary  to 
sound  doctrine  and  the  power  of  Godliness,  lest  we  partake  in  other 
men 's  sins,  and  thereby  be  in  danger  to  receive  their  plagues ;  and  that 
the  Lord  may  be  one,  and  his  name  one  in  the  three  kingdoms,"  (viz. 
England,  Scotland  and  Ireland.) 

In  page  393,  is  found  the  national  covenant  (of  Scotland)  or  the 
confession  of  faith,  subscribed  by  the  king  in  1580,  and  by  persons  of 
all  ranks  in  1581,  and  again  in  1590,  and  by  barons,  noblemen,  gentle- 
men, burgesses,  ministers  and  commoners  in  1638,  approved  by  the  gen- 
eral assembly  (general  council)  in  1639,  and  in  that  year  signed  again 
by  persons  of  all  ranks  and  qualities,  and  ratified  by  an  act  of  parlia- 
ment upon  the  supplication  of  the  general  assembly  in  the  year  1640, 
and  to  which  King  Charles  II  was  obliged  to  affix  his  signature  at  Scone, 
in  1650. 

By  this,  all  persons  are  required  to  profess  and  affirm,  "before  God 
and  the  whole  world,  that  this  only  is  the  true  Christian  faith  and  re- 
ligion, pleasing  to  God,  and  bringing  salvation  to  man."  It  is  also 
called  "God's  eternal  truth,  and  only  ground  of  our  salvation." 

From  this  document  we  may  judge  of  the  intolerance  of  those  who 
penned  and  subscribed  the  confession  of  faith :  take  an  extract. 

"And  therefore  we  abhor  and  detest  all  contrary  religion  and  doc- 
trine; but  chiefly  all  kind  of  Papistry  in  general  and  particular  heads, 
even  as  they  are  now  damned  and  confuted  by  the  word  of  God  and  kirk 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  369 

of  Scotland.  But,  in  special,  we  detest  and  refuse  the  usurped  authority 
of  that  Roman  Antichrist  upon  the  scriptures  of  God,  upon  the  kirk,  the 
civil  magistrates,  and  consciences  of  men;  all  his  tyrannous  laws  made 
upon  indifferent  things  against  our  Christian  liberty ;  his  erroneous  doc- 
trine against  the  sufficiency  of  the  written  word,  the  perfection  of  the 
law,  the  office  of  Christ,  and  his  blessed  evangel ;  his  corrupted  doctrine 
concerning  original  sin,  our  natural  inability  and  rebellion  to  God's  law, 
our  justification  by  faith  only,  our  imperfect  santification  and  obedi- 
ence to  the  law ;  the  nature,  number,  and  use  of  the  holy  sacraments ;  his 
five  bastard  sacraments,  with  all  his  rites,  ceremonies,  and  false  doe- 
trine,  added  to  the  ministration  of  the  true  sacraments  without  the  word 
of  God ;  his  cruel  judgment  against  infants  departing  without  the  sacra- 
ment ;  his  absolute  necessity  of  baptism ;  his  blasphemous  opinion  of 
transubstantiation,  or  real  presence  of  Christ's  body  in  the  elements,  and 
receiving  of  the  same  by  the  wicked,  or  bodies  of  men ;  his  dispensation 
with  solemn  oaths,  perjuries,  and  degrees  of  marriage  forbidden  in  the 
word ;  his  cruelty  against  the  innocent  divorced ;  his  devillish  mass ;  his 
blasphemous  priesthood ;  his  profane  sacrifice  for  sins  of  the  dead  and 
the  quick;  his  canonization  of  men;  calling  upon  angels  or  saints  de- 
parted, worshipping  of  imagery,  relics,  and  crosses ;  dedicating  of  kirks, 
altars,  days;  vows  to  creatures;  his  purgatory,  prayers  for  the  dead; 
praying  or  speaking  in  a  strange  language,  with  his  processions  and 
blasphemous  litany,  and  multitude  of  advocates  or  mediators ;  his  mani- 
fold orders ;  auricular  confession ;  his  desperate  and  uncertain  repen- 
tance; his  general  and  doubtsome  faith;  his  satisfactions  of  men  for 
their  sins ;  his  justification  by  works,  opus  operatum,  works  of  superero- 
gation, merits,  pardons,  peregrinations,  and  stations;  his  holy  water, 
baptizing  of  bells,  conjuring  of  spirits,  crossing,  sayning,  anointing,  con- 
juring, hallowing  of  God's  good  creatures,  with  the  superstitious  opin- 
ion joined  therewith;  his  worldly  monarchy,  and  wicked  hierarchy;  his 
three  solemn  vows,  with  all  his  shavellings  of  sundry  sorts,  his  er- 
roneous and  bloody  decrees  made  at  Trent,  with  all  the  subscribers 
or  approvers  of  that  cruel  and  bloody  band,  conjured  against  the  kirk 
of  God.  And  finally,  we  detest  all  his  vain  allegories,  rites,  signs,  and 
traditions  brought  in  the  kirk,  without  or  against  the  word  of  God, 
and  doctrine  of  this  true  reformed  kirk ;  to  the  which  we  join  ourselves 
willingly,  in  doctrine,  faith,  religion,  discipline,  and  use  of  the  holy 
sacraments,  as  lively  members  of  the  same  in  Christ  our  head:  promis- 
ing and  swearing  by  the  great  name  of  the  Lord  our  God,  that  we 
shall  continue  in  the  obedience  of  the  doctrine  and  discipline  of  this 
kirk,  and  shall  defend  the  same,  according  to  our  own  vocation  and 


370  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

power,  all  the  days  of  our  lives;  under  the  pains  contained  in  the  law, 
and  danger  both  of  body  and  soul  in  the  day  of  God's  fearful  judgment. 

"And  seeing  that  many  are  stirred  up  by  Satan,  and  that  Roman 
Antichrist,  to  promise,  swear,  subscribe,  and  for  a  time  use  the  holy  sac- 
raments in  the  kirk  deceitfully,  against  their  own  conscience;  minding 
hereby,  first,  under  the  external  cloak  of  religion,  to  corrupt  and  sub- 
vert secretly  God's  true  religion  within  the  kirk;  and  afterward,  when 
time  may  serve,  to  become  open  enemies  and  persecutors  of  the  same, 
under  vain  hope  of  the  Pope's  dispensation,  devised  against  the  word 
of  God,  to  his  greater  confusion,  and  their  double  condemnation  in  the 
day  of  the  Lord  Jesus :  we  therefore,  willing  to  take  away  all  suspicion 
of  hypocrisy,  and  of  such  double  dealing  with  God  and  his  kirk,  pro- 
test, and  call  the  Searcher  of  all  hearts  for  witness,  that  our  minds  and 
hearts  do  fully  agree  with  this  our  confession,  promise,  oath,  and  sub- 
scription: so  that  we  are  not  moved  with  any  worldly  respect,  but  are 
persuaded  only  in  our  conscience,  through  the  knowledge  and  love  of 
God's  true  religion  imprinted  in  our  hearts  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  we 
shall  answer  to  him  in  the  day  when  the  secrets  of  all  hearts  shall  be 
disclosed. ' ' 

This  extract  not  only  contains  such  intolerance  as  I  defy  the  as- 
sociated assailants  of  our  Church  to  produce  a  worse  from  any  quar- 
ter; but  it  does  more,  for  it  makes  false  and  calumnious  charges  upon 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  For  instance,  I  would  ask  what  were  the 
bloody  decrees  made  at  Trent?  And  upon  what  do  they  ground  the 
atrocious  charge  of  hypocritical  deceit  in  using  the  sacraments  of  the 
kirk  against  Catholics?  And  upon  what  do  they  found  the  charge  of 
the  Papal  dispensations  for  hypocrisy,  and  deceit,  and  sacrilege? 

The  following  extract  will  exhibit  not  only  the  spirit  of  the  ec- 
clesiastical body  that  drew  up  the  Confession  of  Faith,  but  also  the 
spirit  of  the  legislature  which  enacted  the  laws  therein  recited;  it  is 
taken  from  the  same  Confession  of  Faith. 

"Like  as  many  acts  of  Parliament,  not  only  in  general  do  abro- 
gate, annul,  and  rescind  all  laws,  statutes,  acts,  constitutions,  canons, 
civil  or  municipal,  with  all  other  ordinances,  and  practique  penalties 
whatsoever,  made  in  prejudice  of  the  true  religion,  and  professors  there- 
of;  or  of  the  true  kirk,  discipline,  jurisdiction,  and  freedom  thereof;  or 
in  favor  of  idolatry  and  superstition,  or  of  the  Papistical  kirk:  As 
Act  3,  31,  Parliament  1 ;  Act  23,  Parliament  11 ;  Act  114,  Parliament  11 
of  King  James,  VI.  That  papistry  and  superstition  may  be  utterly  sup- 
pressed, according  to  the  intention  of  the  Acts  of  Parliament,  repeated 
in  Act  5,  Parliament  20,  King  James  VI.    And  to  that  end  they  ordain 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  371 

all  Papists  and  Priests  to  be  punished  with  manifold  civil  and  ecclesi- 
astical pains,  as  adversaries  to  God's  true  religion,  preached,  and  by- 
law established,  within  this  realm,  Act  24,  Parliament  11,  King  James 
VI ;  as  common  enemies  to  all  Christian  government,  Act  18,  Parliament 
16,  King  James  VI ;  as  rebellers  and  gainstanders  of  our  sovereign  Lord's 
authority.  Act  47,  Parliament  3,  King  James  VI ;  and  as  idolaters,  Act 
104,  Parliament  7,  King  James  VI.  But  also,  in  particular,  by  and  at- 
tour  the  Confession  of  Faith,  do  abolish  and  condemn  the  Pope's  au- 
thority and  jurisdiction  out  of  this  land,  and  ordains  the  maintainers 
thereof  to  be  punished,  Act  2,  Parliament  1 ;  Act  51,  Parliament  3 ;  Act 
106,  Parliament  7;  Act  114,  Parliament  12,  King  James  VI,  do  con- 
demn the  Pope's  erroneous  doctrine,  or  any  other  erroneous  doctrine  re- 
pugnant to  any  of  the  articles  of  the  true  and  Christian  religion,  publicly 
preached,  and  by  law  established  in  this  realm ;  and  ordains  the  spread- 
ers and  makers  of  books  or  libels,  or  letters  or  writs  of  that  nature,  to 
be  punished,  Act  46,  Parliament  3 ;  Act  106,  Parliament  7 ;  Act  24,  Par- 
liament 11,  King  James  VI,  do  condemn  all  baptism  conform  to  the 
Pope 's  kirk,  and  the  idolatry  of  the  mass ;  and  ordains  all  sayers,  wilful 
hearers,  and  concealers  of  the  mass,  the  maintainers  and  resetters  of  the 
priests,  Jesuits,  trafficking  Papists,  to  be  punished  without  any  exception 
or  restriction,  Act  5,  Parliament  1;  Act  120,  Parliament  12;  Act  164, 
Parliament  13;  Act  193,  Parliament  14;  Act  1,  Parliament  19;  Act  5, 
Parliament  20,  King  James  VI,  do  condemn  all  erroneous  books  and 
writs  containing  erroneous  doctrine  against  the  religion  presently  pro- 
fessed, or  containing  superstitious  rites  and  ceremonies.  Papistical, 
whereby  the  people  are  greatly  abused,  and  ordains  the  home-bringers 
of  them  to  be  punished.  Act  25,  Parliament  11,  King  James  VI,  do  con- 
demn the  monuments  and  dregs  of  bygone  idolatry,  as  going  to  crosses, 
observing  the  festival  days  of  saints,  and  such  other  superstitions  and 
Papistical  rites,  to  the  dishonor  of  God,  contempt  of  true  religion,  and 
fostering  of  great  error  among  the  people ;  and  ordains  the  users  of 
them  to  be  punished  for  the  second  fault,  as  idolaters.  Act  104,  Parlia- 
ment 7,  King  James  VI." 

The  Presbyterian  Church  of  the  United  States  published  their  Con- 
fession of  Faith  in  the  year  1821.  It  was  published  in  Philadelphia  by 
Anthony  Finley.  In  page  125,  under  the  head  "Of  the  Church,"  is 
the  following: 

Article  II.  "The  visible  Church,  which  is  also  Catholic  or  uni- 
versal under  the  gospel,  (not  confined  to  one  nation  as  before,  under 
the  law)  consists  of  all  those  throughout  the  world,  that  profess  the  true 
religion,  together  with  their  children ;  and  is  the  kingdom  of  their  Lord 


372  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


Jesus  Christ,  the  house  and  family  of  God,  out  of  which  there  is  no  or- 
dinary possibility  of  salvation." 

Article  V,  page  127.  "The  purest  Churches  under  heaven  are 
subject  both  to  mixture  and  error:  and  some  have  so  degenerated,  as  to 
become  no  Churches  of  Christ,  but  synagogues  of  Satan." 

Article  VI.  "There  is  no  other  head  of  the  Church  but  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  Nor  can  the  Pope  of  Rome  in  any  sense  be  head  thereof ; 
but  is  that  Anti-Christ,  that  man  of  sin,  and  son  of  perdition,  that  ex- 
alteth  himself  in  the  Church,  against  Christ,  and  all  that  is  called  God." 

But  this  is  still  farther  exhilaited  in  chapter  xxiv,  page  121,  "Of 
marriage  and  divorce. ' '  Section  2 :  "  It  is  lawful  for  all  sorts  of  people 
to  marry  who  are  able  with  judgment  to  give  their  consent,  yet  it  is 
the  duty  of  Christians  to  marry  only  in  the  Lord.  And  therefore  such 
as  profess  the  true  reformed  religion,  should  not  marry  with  Infidels, 
Papists,  or  other  Idolaters:  neither  should  such  as  are  godly,  be  un- 
equally yoked,  by  marrying  with  such  as  are  notoriously  wicked  in  their 
life,  or  maintain  damnable  heresies. ' ' 

I  shall  follow  up  this  no  longer.    For  the  present,  I  shall  only  add, 
that  before  these  good  gentlemen  charged  us  with  intolerance,  they  ought 
to  have  looked  at  home,  to  see  how  their  own  standard  works  spoke. 
Yours,  and  so  forth,  b.  c. 

LETTER  XXI 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Jan.  29,  1827. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  A^nerica. 

My  Friends — I  have  given  in  my  last  letter  a  very  short  and  im- 
perfect exhibition  of  the  grounds  upon  which  I  might  retort  the  charge 
of  "Intolerance,"  with  a  direful  effect  upon  the  principal  assailants  of 
our  Church,  in  their  recommendation  of  the  Reverend  Joseph  Blanco 
White,  A.M.,  and  so  forth. 

The  writer,  in  the  passage  which  I  have  reviewed,  incidentally  treats 
of  "Infallibility;"  but,  as  a  more  appropriate  occasion  Avill  offer  here- 
after for  the  examination  of  this  topic,  I  shall  now  dismiss  with  two 
observations  the  whole  of  what  is  raised  as  an  implied  dilemma.  It  is 
found  in  page  64  of  the  Evidence : 

"If  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  can  thus  allow  detestable  dogmas 
to  act  in  full  force  within  the  inmost  recesses  of  her  bosom,  those  Cath- 
olics who  differ  from  her  notions,  so  far  as  her  apologist,  Mr.  Butler, 
might  guide  themselves  in  religious  matters,  without  the  assistance  of 
her  infallibility." 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  373 


This  means  that  "religious  intolerance"  by  which  is  meant  an  in- 
junction to  persecute  because  of  religious  error,  is  a  dogma  of  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  Church,  and  consequently  taught  to  Roman  Catholics,  as 
a  portion  of  their  doctrine,  by  her  infallible  tribimal.  The  supposition 
is  a  glaring  assumption  of  what  is  untrue.  The  infallible  tribunal  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  teaches  no  such  dogma.  It  has  indeed,  been 
laid  down  by  her  opponents  as  the  principle  by  which  they  themselves 
were  guided.  It  is  to  be  found  expressly  embodied  in  their  confessions 
of  faith ;  but  I  defy  them  to  show  it  taught  by  our  Church,  as  a  dogma. 
Even  the  miserable  man  White  himself  dare  not  assert  that  it  is  a 
dogma  of  our  Church ;  for  his  expression  is  sufficiently  guarded  to  avoid 
the  direct  charge,  and  sufficiently  framed  to  imply  it,  and  thus  to 
make  a  false  impression  upon  the  general  reader.  He  only  charges  that 
she  allows  detestable  dogmas  to  act  with  full  force,  and  so  forth, — he  does 
not  charge  that  she  teaches, — and  nothing  is  a  doctrine  of  her's  which 
she  does  not  teach. 

Thus,  he  had  also  but  one  dogma  under  consideration ;  and  with  the 
same  species  of  dishonesty,  and  equal  want  of  candor,  of  logic,  and  of 
truth,  he  shifts  to  the  plural,  detestable  dogmas.  A  writer  of  this  de- 
scription in  religious  inquiry  ought  to  be  avoided  as  you  would  a  de- 
tected swindler  in  your  pecuniary  transactions.  Do  you,  or  can  you, 
imagine  a  more  dangerous  being,  than  one  who  knowingly  and  dis- 
honestly quibbles  w^ith  you,  deceives  you,  and  misleads  you  in  your 
anxious  inquiry  for  the  salvation  of  your  soul?  The  miserable  man 
who,  urged  by  want,  dishonestly  tricks  you  into  the  loss  of  a  few  dol- 
lars, is  dragged  before  the  public  tribunal  of  the  country,  is  exposed  to 
official  and  general  reproach,  and  bears  about  him  through  the  world 
the  indelible  mark  of  deserved  infamy ;  but  what  ought  to  be  the  fate  of 
him  who,  by  juggling  falsehood,  endeavors  to  decoy  his  fellow-beings 
from  the  service  of  their  Creator? 

Not  only,  then,  is  the  Roman  Catholic  not  taught  by  his  Church, 
as  a  doctrine,  or  as  a  principle,  that  he  ought  to  persecute  his  neighbor 
for  his  religious  errors,  but  he  is  taught  to  love  his  neighbor  as  himself, 
for  the  love  of  God;  he  is  taught  that  they  who  differ  from  him  in  re- 
ligion are  his  neighbors;  and  we  saw  that  even  White  acknowledged, 
page  65,  that  Rome  did  not  persecute  for  error.  Then  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  does  not  persecute  for  error,  does  not  teach  persecu- 
tion; consequently,  the  detestable  dogma  of  religious  intolerance  is  not 
taught  by  her  infallible  tribunal;  consequently  the  rejection  of  this 
dogma  was  not  in  opposition  to  that  tribunal,  nor  incompatible  with  its 


374  CONTROVEESY  Vol. 


decisions.     What  then  is  the   value   of  White's   dilemmas?     Perhaps 
Bishop  Kemp  can  inform  you,  for  I  cannot. 

I  now  proceed  to  another  extract,  which  is  the  passage  succeeding 
the  one  last  examined: 

"The  Roman  Catholics  have  been  accused  of  holding  a  doctrine 
which  justifies  them  in  not  keeping  faith  with  heretics.  This  charge  is 
false  as  it  stands ;  but  it  has  a  foundation  in  truth,  which  I  will  lay  be- 
fore you,  as  an  important  consequence  of  the  claims  of  your  Church  to 
infallibility.  The  constant  intercourse  with  those  whom  you  call  heretics 
has  blunted  the  feeling  of  horror,  which  the  Roman  Church  has  as- 
siduously fomented  against  Christians  who  dissent  from  her.  It  is,  in- 
deed, a  happy  result  of  the  Reformation,  that  some  of  the  strongest  pre- 
judices of  the  Roman  Catholics  have  been  softened,  wherever  the  Pro- 
testant religion  has  obtained  a  footing.  Where  this  mixture  has  never 
taken  place,  true  Roman  Catholics  remain  nearly  what  they  were  in  the 
time  when  Christendom  rejoiced  at  the  breach  of  faith  which  committed 
Huss  to  the  flames,  by  the  sentence  of  a  general  council.  In  England, 
however,  far  from  pretending  to  such  advantages,  the  Roman  Cath- 
olics resented  the  suspicion  that  their  oaths,  not  to  interfere  with  the 
Protestant  establishment,  may  be  annulled  by  the  Pope.  The  settled 
and  sincere  determination  to  keep  such  oaths,  in  those  who  appeared 
ready  to  take  them,  I  will  not  question  for  a  moment;  but  I  cannot 
conceal  my  persuasion,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  every  Roman  Catholic  pas- 
tor to  dissuade  the  members  of  his  flock  from  taking  oaths  which,  if 
not  allowed  in  a  spirit  of  the  most  treacherous  policy,  would  imply  a 
separation  from  the  communion  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  Let  me  lay 
down  the  doctrine  of  that  Church  on  this  important  point." 

It  certainly  is  a  very  novel  mode  of  proving  a  charge,  by  com- 
mencing with  a  declaration  that  it  is  false,  and  then  proceeding  to  prove 
that  it  has  a  foundation  in  truth ;  yet  such  is  Mr.  White 's  exhibition  of 
himself!  Did  his  American  sponsors  undertake  to  carry  him  through 
this  difficulty?  Do  they  charge  upon  their  fellow-citizens  the  horrid 
crime  here  imputed  to  the  great  bulk  of  Christendom,  of  which  the  Ro- 
man Catholics  of  this  Union  form  a  portion?  Is  it  possible  that  they 
impute  to  the  venerable  survivor  of  that  patriot  band,  which  gave  lib- 
erty and  power  to  our  glorious  republic,  that  there  is  a  true  foundation 
for  the  charge,  that  he  would  not  keep  faith  with  heretics  ?  Was  there 
a  foundation  of  truth  for  the  charge,  that  Lafayette,  Rochambeau,  Pu- 
laski, De  Grasse,  and  so  many  other  Roman  Catholics  did  not  keep  faith 
with  heretics  ?  Was  Arnold  a  Roman  Catholic  ?  Did  the  Pennsylvania 
line,  which  was  eminently  Catholic,  keep  faith  with  heretics  ?    Did  Louis 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  375 

XVI  keep  faith  with  heretics?  My  friends,  there  is  a  point  at  which 
the  mind  almost  loses  its  power  of  argument,  and  indignation  becomes  a 
virtue.  Who  would  stoop  to  argument  with  a  seducer  ?  Who  would  dis- 
pute upon  the  impropriety  of  defamation?  Who  would  endeavor  to 
convince  a  calumniator  ?  There  was  a  time  when  the  gross  multitude  of 
ignorant  Englishmen  was  duped  by  the  knavery  of  an  unprincipled 
court,  which  deluded  one  portion  of  its  subjects,  that  it  might  be  en- 
abled to  grind  down  other  nations,  and  thus  play  the  tyrant  over  a 
divided  and  debased  population;  but  when  that  court  made  its  essay 
at  this  side  of  the  Atlantic,  young  America  rose  in  the  vigor  of  her  in- 
tellect, the  power  of  her  strength,  and  the  pride  of  her  independence; 
and,  with  the  aid  of  a  Catholic  nation,  broke  a  tyrant's  sceptre,  and 
placed  her  foot  upon  his  crown ;  whilst  the  delighted  eagle  of  her  Appala- 
chian hills  played  around  her  head,  leaving  in  his  track  the  halo  of  her 
glory  and  of  his  joy;  and  shall  the  American  mind  at  this  day  be  en- 
thi'alled  by  the  calumnious  influence  of  the  British  court?  Shall  our 
country,  whilst  she  ranks  high  amidst  the  nations  of  the  earth,  still  be 
debased  by  her  children,  in  being  made  the  receptacle  of  the  vilest  libels 
of  the  most  persecuting  court  in  Christendom?  Is  this  the  liberality  of 
our  clergy?  Is  this  the  learning  of  our  ministers  of  religion?  Is  this 
the  independence  of  our  spirit?  Is  this  the  affection  of  our  fellow-citi- 
zens? Is  this  the  honor  of  America,  that,  when  even  Hodge  declares 
that  the  Pope  of  Rome  has  neither  tail  nor  horns;  when,  from  John 
O 'Groat's  house  to  the  cliffs  of  Dover,  it  is  avowed  that  he  is  not  a  scar- 
let lady;  when  a  starving  population  proclaims  that  it  has  been  de- 
ceived by  a  bloated  clergy,  and  robbed  and  degraded  by  an  oppressive 
government?  Is  this  the  honor  of  America,  that  at  such  a  time  as 
this,  when  a  Catholic  people  is  told  by  a  profligate  prince,  who  has  been 
publicly  convicted  before  the  parliament  of  his  country,  of  making  the 
highest  offices  of  the  nation  the  price  of  his  paramours'  crimes,  that  as 
God  shall  help  him  they  shall  be  kept  in  bondage,  the  clergy  of  the  Pro- 
testant Churches  of  America  should  combine  to  fling  upon  their  Catholic 
fellow-citizens  the  dregs  of  the  calumnies  which  have  emanated  from 
such  a  source,  and  give  to  the  American  people  the  offal,  which  the 
very  rabble  of  Great  Britain  has  rejected?  For  shame!  That  our 
country  shduld  have  so  low  a  place,  as  that  Bishop  Kem.p  and  his  as- 
sociates have  no  other  mode  of  assailing  us,  save  the  fragments  of  those 
poisonous  arrows,  which  they  collect  from  the  fields  in  which  their  dis- 
comfited brethren  have  fallen  in  Europe!  And  must  I,  need  I,  exhibit 
the  absurd  and  contradictory  statement  thus  taken  up.  The  charge  is 
false,  as  it  stands,  but  it  has  a  foundation  in  truth !  !  1 


376  CONTROVEKSY  Vol. 

If  it  be  true  that  Catholic  prejudice  has  been  softened,  by  an 
intercourse  with  Protestants,  I  lament  much  that  the  prelate  and  his 
associates  have  not  hearts  equally  susceptible ;  for,  indeed,  it  is  out  of 
my  power  to  return  Blanco  White's  compliment  in  their  favor. 

The  same  bad  spirit,  which  pervades  the  entire  publication,  is  ap- 
parent in  this  passage;  the  same  spirit  of  falsehood  prevails.  (1).  It  is 
not  true  that  Christendom  rejoiced  at  the  breach  of  faith  which  com- 
mitted Huss  to  the  flames.  (2).  It  is  not  true  that  Huss  was  com- 
mitted to  the  flames  by  the  sentence  of  a  general  council.  (3).  It  is  not 
true  that  any  breach  of  faith  was  committed  by  any  person  in  the  case 
of  the  burning  of  the  unfortunate  man,  who  fell  the  victim  of  his  own 
delusion. 

As  the  refutation  of  every  distinct  falsehood  contained  in  the  pro- 
duction of  our  opponents,  would  lead  to  almost  the  labor  of  a  life,  and 
as  those  have  been  often  before  refuted,  and  as  often  repeated  without 
proof,  I  shall  content  myself  with  placing  my  denial  upon  record,  and 
declaring  that  when  either  of  our  assailants  shall  think  proper  to  at- 
tempt the  proof  of  either  of  the  propositions  which  I  have  denied,  T 
shall  meet  him  with  its  refutation. 

The  conclusion  of  this  passage  of  White's  contains  the  most  atro- 
cious charge  upon  us:  let  us  therefore  see  the  reasoning: 

*'I  will  assume  the  most  liberal  opinion  of  the  Catholic  divines,  and 
grant  that  the  Pope  cannot  annul  an  oath  in  virtue  of  his  dispensing 
power.  12  But  this  can  only  be  said  of  a  lawful  oath;  a  quality  which  no 
human  law  can  confer  upon  an  engagement  to  perform  a  sinful  act.  A 
promise  under  oath,  to  execute  an  immoral  deed,  is  in  itself  a  monstrous 
offence  against  the  divine  law;  and  the  performance  of  such  a  promise 
would  only  aggravate  the  crime  of  having  made  it.  There  are,  how- 
ever, cases  where  the  lawfulness  of  the  engagement  is  doubtful,  and  the 
obligation  burthensome,  or,  by  a  change  of  circumstances,  inexpedient 
and  preposterous.  The  interference  of  the  Pope,  in  such  cases,  is,  ac- 
cording to  the  liberal  opinion  I  am  stating,  improperly  called  dispensa- 
tion. The  Pope  only  declares  that  the  original  oath  or  vow  was  null  and 
void,  either  from  the  nature  of  the  thing  promised,  or  from  some  circum- 
stances in  the  manner  and  form  of  the  promise ;  when,  by  virtue  of  his 


"  Thomas  Aquinas,  whoso  authority  is  most  highly  reverenced  in  these  matters, 
maintains,  however,  that  there  exists  a  power  in  the  Church  to  dispense  both  with  a 
vow,  which,  according  to  him,  is  the  most  sacred  of  all  engagements,  and  conse- 
quently, with  an  oath.  Sicut  in  voto  aliqua  necessitatis  seu  honestatis  causa  potest 
fieri  dispensatio,  ita  et  in  Juramento.  Secunda  Sccundae,  Quest.  Ixxxix,  art.  ix.  The 
Popes,  in  fact,  have  frequently  exercised  this  dispensing  power  with  the  tacit  consent 
of  the  Church. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  377 


authority,  the  head  of  the  Church  removes  all  spiritual  responsibility 
from  the  person  who  submits  himself  to  his  decision,  I  do  not  consider 
myself  bound  to  confirm  the  accuracy  of  this  statement,  by  written  au- 
thorities, as  I  do  not  conceive  the  possibility  of  any  Roman  Catholic  di- 
vine bringing  it  into  question." 

It  is  very  extraordinary  that  this  man  should  impute  to  us  a  doc- 
trine which  we  do  not  hold,  and  then  state  that  it  is  impossible  for  us  to 
deny  that  the  doctrine  is  ours,  and  therefore  he  need  not  prove  that  we 
hold  it.  I  have  now  extended  this  letter  too  far  to  allow  me  to  disprove 
this  charge,  but  I  deny  that  he  has  correctly  stated  our  tenet,  and  must 
reserve  my  further  remarks  for  my  next. 

Yours,  and  so  forth,  b.  c. 

LETTER  XXII 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Feb.  5, 1827. 
To  the  Roman  CatJiolics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends, — I  proceed  to  examine  the  grounds  upon  which  White 
'rests  his  monstrous  charge  that  there  is  no  dependence  to  be  placed 
upon  the  oaths  of  Roman  Catholics  to  a  Protestant  government:  the 
passage  which  contains  his  argument  upon  this  head,  has  been  laid  be- 
fore you  in  my  last  letter.  Let  us,  however,  see  the  true  state  of  the 
question,  by  considering  the  special  case  which  gave  rise  to  White's  re- 
marks. 

Roman  Catholics  believe  that  their  Protestant  brethren  have  de- 
parted from  the  true  doctrines  of  our  Saviour:  in  Great  Britain,  King 
Henry  VIII,  the  guardians  of  Edward  VI,  and  Queen  Elizabeth,  made 
the  Parliaments  deprive  the  Roman  Catholics  of  that  property  and  of 
those  establishments  which  had  been  given  to  their  Church  by  their  pre- 
decessors of  the  same  faith :  a  considerable  portion  of  this  property  was 
given  by  the  crown,  in  bribes  to  those  who  were  principally  influential  in 
sanctioning  the  plunder ;  and  the  remainder  was  given  to  form  an  estab- 
lishment for  a  new  church  modeled  upon  the  form  which  pleased  the 
plunderers.  It  is  time  for  us,  my  friends,  to  call  these  people  by  their 
true  names ;  no  person  could  attempt  to  do  so,  whilst  our  republics  were 
colonies  of  Britain;  custom  perpetuated  the  appellation  which  power 
originally  insisted  upon :  America  still  was  the  suckling  of  England  in 
literature;  but  she  has  been  weaned;  and  her  mental  independence 
makes  rapid  progress :  her  children  will  upon  examination  acknowledge 
that  I  have  given  to  the  courtiers  of  Henry,  of  Edward,  and  of  Eliza- 
beth, their  appropriate  appellation. 


378  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


The  British  State  thus  linked  to  a  Church  of  its  own  creation,  com- 
menced a  most  atrocious  persecution  against  the  adherents  of  the  old 
religion ;  the  annals  of  the  world  exhibit  no  parallel  to  the  frightful  code 
and  its  protracted  execution.     By  the  most  unnatural  and  ruinous  sys- 
tem of  taxation,  the  British  empire  achieved  the  most  prominent  situ- 
ation in  the  world:  and  her  pride  and  her  cruelty  equalled  her  pros- 
perity.   She  met  her  first  reverse  when  she  unconstitutionally  attempted 
to  make  her  American  colonies  share  in  the  payment  of  her  wanton 
expenses :  wounded  by  the  talons  of  our  young  eagle,  she  sought  to  con- 
ciliate the  wretched  Catholics  whom  she  had  so  severely  smitten;  but 
w^hen  the  conscious  criminal  found  herself  under  the  necessity  of  miti- 
gating her  tortures,  she  felt  how  unseemly  her  conduct  must  appear  un- 
less there  was  some  pretext  for  the  relaxation.     She  had  previously,  to 
attempt  a  justification  of  her  misconduct,  charged  upon  her    victims 
crimes  of  which  she  had  herself  created  the  semblance,  that  she  might 
impute  to  them  the  reality ;  she  now  required  of  them  to  disavow  tenets 
which  they  never  held,  that  upon  the  ground  of  the  disavowal  she  might 
rest  at  once  her  present  concession  and  the  palliation  of  her  former 
injustice.    Thus  the  misfortune  of  the  British  nation  was  the  cause  of  the  • 
first  mitigation  of  her  barbarous  code  in  1778,  as  the  dangerous  state  of 
Sc9tland  and  of  England  in  1745,  was  the  cause  of  the  first  relaxation 
of  the  Irish  government  in  its  execution  of  statutes  which  depopulated 
one  half  the  kingdom  and  barbarized  the  other  half ;  because  in  a  state 
of  active  persecution  the  torturer  and  the  tortured  are  equally  made 
ferocious.    When  in  1793,  the  convulsions  of  France,  shook  Europe  to  its 
center,  Ireland  trembled  and  Britain  felt  the  vibration;  more  conces- 
sion was  found  to  be  absolutely  necessary.     The  Catholic  Universities 
had  been  seriously  asked  the  most  insulting  questions,  and  upon  their 
declarations  that  the  religion  of  Christendom  was  not  a  tissue  of  blas- 
phemy and  execrable  crime,  and  also  upon  requiring  the  Catholics  to 
swear  that  they  would  not  take  away  the  plunder  from  the   Church 
of  the  State  to  give  it  to  their  own  Church,  and  that  they  would  not 
seek  for  a  restitution  of  the  lands  of  which  their  families  had  been 
robbed  because  they  would  not  join  the  Church  of  the  State,  they  re- 
ceived farther  concessions. 

Since  that  period,  thirty-four  years  had  elapsed;  an  entire  gener- 
ation had  passed  away:  and  no  semblance  of  a  charge  could  be  made 
against  that  generation  for  having  deviated  from  the  spirit  or  the  letter 
of  that  oath.  An  immense  portion  of  this  persecuting  code  still  afflicts 
the  present  generation :  though  they  have  by  the  British  House  of  Com- 
mons been  repeatedly  declared  worthy  of  the  full  restitution  of  their 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  379 

rights:  the  present  King,  Lords  and  Commons  have  solemnly  declared 
by  more  than  one  act  of  the  legislature,  that  the  crimes  imputed  to  their 
fathers,  and  upon  the  supposed  existence  of  which,  several  of  those  per- 
secuting laws  were  enacted,  were  base  fabrications  supported  only  by  the 
flagrant  perjury,  in  several  instances,  of  a  clergyman  of  the  established 
Church,  and  of  his  equally  criminal  associates.  The  present  generation 
complains  that  notwithstanding  their  blood  and  treasure  having  been 
profusely  lavished  in  the  cause  of  their  persecuting  government,  and 
their  willingness  to  abide  by  their  oaths  as  their  fathers  have  done,  still 
they  are  degraded  and  afflicted:  the  House  of  Commons  votes  their  re- 
lief, and  a  large  portion  of  the  Peers  are  known  to  be  favorable  to  the 
great  principle  of  civil  and  religious  liberty;  the  great  dignitaries  of 
the  established  Church  whisper  to  their  friends  and  dependents,  that  if 
the  Catholics  are  restored  to  their  rights,  they  will  be  stripped  of  those 
possessions  which  were  originally  taken  from  the  Catholics,  and  there- 
fore, they  must  oppose  the  concession  of  their  rights  to  a  persecuted 
people.  Call  you  this  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel  ?  Is  this  the  characteristic 
of  apostles?  Are  these  the  followers  of  him  who  sent  without  scrip  or 
purse  those  men  to  whom  they  claim  succession?  But  mark  the  means 
which  are  used  in  addition.  White,  an  apostate  Spanish  priest,  a  man 
whom  I  shall  yet  prove  from  his  own  book  not  to  be  in  the  doctrinal 
communion  of  that  English  Church,  is  employed  to  publish  a  gross  libel 
to  defame  the  Catholics,  and  to  assert  amongst  other  falsehoods,  that  this 
oath  which  they  tendered,  taken  and  observed,  is  no  security :  that  ac- 
cording to  the  most  liberal  opinion  of  Catholic  divines,  the  promissory 
oath  of  a  Eoman  Catholic  is  no  guarantee  for  his  performance.  The 
Irish  Catholics  have  given  such  an  answer  to  this  charge  when  it  was 
made  by  men  more  worthy  of  notice  than  White,  as  ought  to  have  caused 
their  calumniators  to  be  forever  silent.  "Produce  to  us,"  say  they,  "a 
single  instance  in  which  we  violated  our  oaths  or  our  engagements  to 
you.  We  charge  you  with  having  violated  the  law  of  nations  in  our 
regard,  we  charge  you  with  having  induced  the  British  King  William 
III,  to  forfeit  the  sacred  faith  of  plighted  majesty ;  we  charge  you  with 
having  induced  the  privy  council  to  violate  their  oaths  of  office;  we 
charge  you  with  the  most  disgraceful  and  flagrant  violation  of  a  solemn 
treaty  made  at  the  walls  of  Limerick.  Upon  your  pledged  faith  we 
laid  down  our  arms,  and  you  enslaved  us ;  we  confided  in  your  honor, 
and  you  betrayed  us ;  we  knelt  before  our  altars  to  adore  our  God,  and 
you  who  swore  to  permit  us  to  do  so  without  molestation,  dragged  us 
from  the  holy  place  in  chains ;  seized  upon  our  buildings,  confiscated  our 
inheritance,  thrust  us  into  your  dungeons,  murdered  thousands,   and 


380  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


made  millions  hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of  water:  you  have  taunted 
us  in  our  afflicting  degradation;  you  have  violated  your  own  oaths! 
and  misrepresented  us  to  the  world ;  you  sent  us  to  every  foreign  shore 
with  contumely,  and  you  charge  us  with  not  being  worthy  of  credit  on 
our  oaths !  How  well  it  becomes  you  to  make  the  charge !  Do  you  judge 
of  us  by  yourselves?  We  spurn  the  comparison.  Though  you  may 
bend  our  bodies,  you  cannot  debase  our  souls ;  our  honor  is  untarnished, 
our  faith  is  preserved,  our  promises  are  fulfilled,  our  oaths  are  unvio- 
lated:  wipe  from  yourselves  the  disgrace  of  your  ancestors:  talk  not  of 
oaths,  until  you  do  us  justice."  Such  is  the  answer  of  the  Irish  Catho- 
lic to  the  British  Churchman. 

But  the  most  extraordinary  part  of  the  whole  case  remains.  A  num- 
ber of  American  Protestant  Clergymen  of  contradictory  denominations 
unite  under  the  leadership  of  a  Bishop  of  a  Church  which  sprung  from 
that  created  in  England,  to  reprint  in  America  White's  calumny  against 
the  British  Catholics !  What  can  be  their  object?  That  of  the  people  la 
England  was  palpable.  Was  the  object  of  the  American  Clergy  th'3 
same  ?  To  prevent  Catholic  emancipation ;  to  try  whether  they  could  by 
telling  their  flocks  that  British  Catholics  were  not  credible  on  their 
oaths,  cool  down  that  generous  ardor  which  led  the  American  Protestant 
and  Catholic  to  associate  in  the  cause  of  suffering  Ireland  and  in  the 
cause  of  suffering  Greece  ?  Could  it  be  possible  that  this  was  the  object 
of  Bishop  Kemp  and  his  associates?  I  hope  not.  I  should  be  sorry  to 
think  that  so  many  men,  holding  such  stations  in  our  republics,  should 
have  formed  a  holy  alliance  against  the  great  principle  of  civil  and  re- 
ligious liberty.  But  what  is  the  alternative?  If  the  object  was  not  to 
charge  the  criminal  principle  solely  upon  the  British  Catholics,  for  the 
nefarious  purpose  of  continuing  their  debasement,  it  must  be,  as  they 
say  themselves,  to  exhibit  the  true  principles  of  the  Catholic  religion; 
thus  they  make  the  charge  upon  every  American  Catholic,  and  upon 
every  Catholic  in  the  world ;  that  is,  upon  nearly  two  hundred  millions 
of  the  most  civilized  portion  of  the  human  race !  !  !  And  for  this  pur- 
pose they  adopt  the  atrocious  and  miserable  sophistry  and  falsehood  of 
White.    Let  us  examine  its  value. 

He  sets  out  with  a  statement  that  it  is  the  most  liberal  opinion  of 
Catholic  divines  that  the  Pope  cannot  annul  an  oath  in  virtue  of  his  dis- 
pensing power.  As  most  of  this  man's  deceit  consists  in  the  ambiguity 
of  his  phrases,  I  must  be  rather  tedious  in  their  examination.  In  this 
place  it  is  right  to  have  an  accurate  notion  of  what  is  the  meaning  o£ 
the  Pope's  dispensing  power.     I  have  known  persons  to  assert  that  it 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO    WHITE  381 

was  a  doctrine  of  our  Church  that  the  Pope  could  dispense  with  the  ob- 
servance of  the  law  of  God. 

A  dispensing  power  pre-supposes  an  obligatory  power,  because  a 
power  of  dispensing  means  power  to  release  from  an  obligation.  We 
must  then  know  what  is  the  power  which  binds,  before  we  can  know 
properly  what  is  the  power  which  can  release.  Man  is  a  creature  depend- 
ent upon  God  who  is  his  supreme  ruler  and  legislator;  this  legislator 
has  bound  man  to  the  observance  of  certain  great  principles,  which  are 
discoverable  by  the  natural  exercise  of  his  reason,  and  the  collection  of 
those  principles,  is  called  the  natural  law:  the  same  legislator  has  also 
by  means  of  revelation,  given  certain  precepts  for  man's  conduct,  the 
collection  of  those  precepts  is  called  the  divine  law.  The  natural  law 
and  the  divine  law  emanating  from  the  God  of  truth  and  immutability, 
must  be  consistent  and  changeable.  A  universally  acknowledged 
maxim  of  law  is,  that  no  power  inferior  to  that  which  made  a  law 
can  repeal  it,  or  dispense  with  its  observance;  but  the  power  which  en- 
acted may  repeal  its  own  act,  or  may  restrict  its  force  by  exempting  cer- 
tain individuals  or  communities  from  its  operation.  It  is  also  acknowl- 
edged that  the  legislator  who  makes  a  general  law,  can  depute  to  an  in- 
dividual, or  to  a  community,  a  power  in  certain  cases,  of  dispensing 
with  its  observance;  and  the  dispensation  will  in  this  case  be  equally 
valid  as  was  the  original  enactment:  in  such  a  case,  it  is  not  required 
that  the  power  of  the  deputy  should  be  equal  to  the  power  of  the  legis- 
lator, because  in  fact  his  delegated  poAver  is  not  his  own,  but  that  of  his 
principal,  who  is  the  legislator.  Thus  the  governors  of  several  of  our 
States,  who  certainly  have  not  the  power  of  legislation,  dispense,  in  sev- 
eral instances,  by  the  authority  of  the  State  or  its  legislature,  with  the 
execution  of  several  criminal  laws  of  the  State.  If  the  people  had 
power  to  dispense  with  observance  of  the  natural  law,  or  of  the  divine 
law,  it  must  be  in  virtue  of  a  special  delegation  for  that  purpose  given 
by  God :  which  delegation  should  be  fully  proved. 

Besides  the  natural  and  divine  law,  man  is  bound  by  the  laws  of 
society,  that  is,  by  the  law  of  nations,  or  that  collection  of  general  prin- 
ciples which  all  civilized  societies  have  agreed  upon  as  the  basis  for  their 
intercourse,  and  by  the  laws  of  that  particular  nation  in  which  the  indi- 
vidual resides.  The  delegation  of  the  nations  which  form  society  is 
necessary  to  be  exhibited  as  the  ground  for  a  valid  dispensation  from 
the  law  of  nations,  and  the  delegation  of  the  particular  nation  must  also 
precede  the  power  to  dispense  in  any  one  of  its  enactments:  the  same 
principle  is  of  equal  force  through  all  lawful  associations  down  to  the 
humblest  club  of  mutual  aid. 


382  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

The  Church  is  a  society  established  by  God  himself  for  spiritual 
purposes.  Roman  Catholics  believe  that  the  great  Creator  of  this  body 
did  not  form  or  sanction  the  formation  of  conflicting  ecclesiastical  bodies, 
but  made  his  Church  one  in  her  government  and  doctrines.  They  be- 
lieve, that  this  single  society  has  received  from  God  for  its  constitution, 
first,  the  natural  law,  secondly,  the  divine  negative  law;  that  is,  a  col- 
lection of  ordinances  by  God,  in  which  he  forbids  at  all  times  and  under 
all  circumstances  the  doing  of  certain  acts :  they  believe  that  he  did  not 
leave  to  the  Church  the  power  of  repealing  or  dispensing  in  any  portion 
of  either  of  those  sections  of  its  constitution.  They  further  believe  that, 
thirdly,  he  gave  certain  positive  ordinances,  or  laws  [commanding]  to 
do  certain  acts,  which  were  never  to  be  omitted  altogether,  but  that  he 
left  to  the  Church  the  power  of  enacting,  according  to  circumstances  of 
time  and  place,  when  and  how  these  duties  were  to  be  performed.  Such 
was  that  of  observing  the  Sabbath  as  a  holy  day,  which  obligation  the 
Church  has  subsequently  transferred  to  the  Lord's  day — such  also  was 
the  precept  of  fasting,  but  the  designation  of  the  special  time  and  man- 
ner he  left  to  the  Church :  fourthly,  that  he  gave  to  this  Church  a  form 
of  government,  which  it  had  no  authority  to  change,  and  that  this 
government  received  from  him  legislative,  judicial  and  executive  powers; 
[also  that]  as  the  Church  was  one  body,  he  constituted  a  president  who 
was  to  be  the  principal  judge,  and  the  supreme  administrator  of  this 
society,  who  was  to  have  certain  inalienable  rights  and  powers.  This 
supreme  head  is  the  Pope,  and  his  power  of  dispensation,  upon  legal 
principles,  cannot  reach  to  the  constitution  of  the  Church;  thus  he  can- 
not dispense  in  any  obligation  of  the  natural  law,  nor  in  any  obligation 
of  the  divine  negative  law;  for  instance,  he  cannot  make  it  lawful  for 
a  child  to  injune  a  parent,  or  for  a  parent  to  abandon  his  child ;  nor 
can  he  make  murder  innocent,  or  a  lie  guiltless ;  neither  can  he  dispense 
with  the  divine  positive  law,  so  as  to  exempt  a  person  continually  from 
its  operation,  though  he  has  power  to  dispense  for  sufficient  cause,  with 
the  positive  enactment  of  the  Church,  regulating  the  time  and  manner; 
for  instance  of  that  public  worship  which  God  has  commanded,  or  of 
that  fasting  or  mortification  which  he  generally  established;  nor  can 
he  dispense  with  or  change  that  form  of  Church  government  which  is  of 
divine  institution ;  hence,  properly  speaking,  the  Pope  has  power  only, 
upon  sufficient  grounds  to  grant  a  dispensation  from  the  observance  of 
the  general  ecclesiastical  laws ;  but  not  from  the  observance  of  the  natural 
law,  or  of  the  divine  law. 

Having  thus  ascertained  the  nature  of  the  Pope's  dispensing  power, 
we  proceed  to  ascertain  by  what  law  is  an  oath  binding.     A  promissory 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  383 

oath  is  a  promise  made  with  a  solemn  adjuration  of  God  to  do  some  act, 
or  to  avoid  some  act.  The  divine  negative  law  decrees  : — ' '  Thou  shalt 
not  take  the  name  of  the  Lord  thy  God  in  vain." — Hence  the  divine 
negative  law  binds  to  the  performance,  and  the  power  of  dispensing 
therein  resides  in  God  alone,  unless  he  has  granted  a  delegated  power 
to  another;  and  of  that  delegation,  there  must  be  sufficient  evidence. 
But  as  White  now  says  St.  Thomas  asserts  that  there  exists  in  the 
Church  a  power  of  dispensing  with  vows,  which  are  solemn  promises 
made  to  God,  and  with  oaths  which  are  the  next  in  solemnity,  as  being 
adjurations  of  God ;  it  becomes  necessary  to  examine  farther. 

God  left  in  his  Church  judicial  power,  that  is,  a  power  of  deciding 
as  well  Avhat  were  general  principles  of  the  law  which  he  gave,  as  also 
what  were  the  particular  cases  to  which  they  were  applicable.  In  the 
tribunal  the  general  decision  is  made,  that  a  promissory  oath  binds  under 
pain  of  damnation  to  the  performance  of  the  promise.  I  shall  now 
adduce  a  special  case.  A  person  has  vowed  or  sworn  to  pay  yearly  dur- 
ing his  life  a  certain  sum  of  money  towards  the  propagation  of  the  Chris- 
tian Religion  in  a  heathen  country:  the  oath  was  the  sanction  of  a  law- 
ful promise  to  do  a  meritorious  act ;  he  is  evidently  bound  to  its  per- 
formance. Years  elapse,  his  means  are  diminished,  his  friends  are  im- 
poverished, and  his  parents  are  cast  upon  his  bounty  for  their  sub- 
sistence; yet  he  has  the  means  of  supplying  his  own  wants  and  of 
observing  his  oath;  but  by  so  doing  he  must  neglect  his  parents;  and  if 
he  gives  the  usual  contribution  for  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel,  his 
wretched  family  will  perish  through  want :  he  applies  to  the  tribunal 
to  know  whether  he  is  still  bound  to  fulfill  his  vow  or  to  observe  his 
oath,  that  vow  and  oath  which  were  originally  lawful,  and  meritorious, 
and  binding.  I  do  not  treat  of  an  unlawful  oath,  or  of  a  sinful  oath 
which  never  could  create  any  bond  or  obligation.  The  tribunal  of  the 
Church  will  tell  him  to  observe  the  natural  law,  and  the  law  of  charity, 
which  bind  him  to  support  his  parents,  and  by  the  power  which  God  left 
of  binding  and  loosing,  w^ill  now  loose  him  from  the  oath  or  vow,  and 
dispense  with  an  observance  which  though  originally  meritorious,  would 
now  be  a  violation  of  the  supreme  law  of  nature,  of  the  best  law  of 
charity. 

The  oath  or  vow  here  was  originally  good  and  binding,  yet  White 
asserts  in  page  68,  that  in  such  a  case  "The  Pope  only  declares  the 
original  oath  or  vow  was  null  and  void."  And  this  is  the  theologian 
whom  Bishop  Kemp  and  his  associates  hold  forward  as  eminently  qual- 
ified to  tell  the  Protestants  of  America,  what  are  the  doctrines  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church ! ! !     Do  those  good  men  themselves  know  our 


384  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

doctrines?  If  they  do,  why  misrepresent  them?  If  they  do  not,  why 
presume  to  testify  upon  a  subject  concerning  which  they  are  ignorant? 
White  concludes  his  assertion  of  this  false  imputation,  in  the  manner 
which  is  usually  characteristic  of  that  arrogance  which  undertakes  to 
make  tenets  for  our  Church  without  studying  our  authors.  "I  do  not 
consider  myself  bound  to  confirm  the  accuracy  of  this  statement  by 
written  authorities,  as  I  do  not  conceive  the  possibility  of  any  Roman 
Catholic  divine  bringing  it  into  question." 

So  it  is;  the  mere  assertion  of  the  most  puny  and  unprincipled 
libeller  of  our  Church  is  to  pass  current  as  proof ;  and  he  need  never  pro- 
duce evidence  of  the  correctness  of  his  statements ;  all  our  declarations, 
documents  and  writers,  are  of  no  avail  against  the  simple  calumny  of 
our  accuser.  Whether  America  will  in  this  respect  follow  the  example 
of  Europe,  remains  yet  to  be  seen.     White  continues, 

"The  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  on  the  obligation  of  oaths  being 
clearly  understood,  sincere  members  of  that  Church  can  find  no  difficulty 
in  applying  it  to  any  existing  test,  or  to  any  oath  which  may  be  ten- 
dered, in  future,  with  a  view  to  define  the  limits  of  their  opposition  to 
doctrines  and  practices  condemned  by  Rome.  In  the  first  place,  they 
cannot  but  see  that  an  oath  binding  them  to  lend  a  direct  support  to 
any  Protestant  establishment,  or  to  omit  such  measures  as  may,  without 
finally  injuring  the  cause  of  Catholicism,  check  and  disturb  the  spread 
and  ascendancy  of  error;  is  in  itself  sinful  and  cannot,  therefore,  be 
obligatory.  In  the  second  place  it  must  be  evident  that  if,  for  the 
advantage  of  the  Catholic  religion  suffering  under  an  heterodox  ascen- 
dancy, some  oaths  of  this  kind  may  be  tolerated  by  Catholic  divines, 
the  head  of  that  Church  will  find  it  his  duty,  to  declare  their  nullity 
upon  any  change  of  circumstances.  The  persevering  silence  of  the 
papal  see  in  regard  to  this  point,  notwithstanding  the  advantages  which 
an  authorized  declaration  would  give  to  the  Roman  Catholics  of  Great 
Britain  and  Ireland,  is  an  indubitable  proof  that  the  Pope  cannot  give 
his  sanction  to  engagements  made  in  favor  of  a  Protestant  establish- 
ment. Of  this,  Bossuet  himself  was  aware,  when  to  his  guarded  opinion 
upon  the  scruples  of  James  II  against  the  coronation  oath,  he  subjoined 
the  salvo: — "I  nevertheless  submit  with  all  my  heart  to  the  supreme 
decision  of  his  Holiness."  If  that  decision,  however,  was  then,  and  is 
now,  withheld,  notwithstanding  the  disadvantages  to  which  the  silence 
of  Rome  subjects  the  Roman  Catholics  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  it 
would  at  all  tend  to  remove  them.  To  such  as  are  intimately  acquainted 
with  the  Catholic  doctrines,  which  I  have  just  laid  before  you,  the  con- 
duct of  the  Roman  see  is  in  no  way  mysterious." 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  385 

Of  course  my  friends  you  perceive  that  this  whole  sentence  is  built 
upon  a  false  supposition,  namely,  that  he  did  clearly  lay  down  our  doc- 
trine on  the  obligation  of  oaths.  In  the  next  place  he  states  a  distinct 
falsehood,  viz.  that  the  oath  which  Roman  Catholics  in  Great  Britaia 
take,  not  to  use  their  political  power  to  disturb  the  Protestant  establish- 
ment for  the  purpose  of  substituting  a  Roman  Catholic  establishment  in 
its  stead,  is  an  oath  binding  them  to  lend  direct  support  to  the  Protestant 
establishment.  It  is  no  such  oath;  it  is  only  a  covenant  made  as  a  con- 
dition upon  which  they  seek  to  be  admitted  to  their  rights,  that  they  will 
not  reclaim  for  their  own  Church  the  plunder  which  the  Protestant 
holds ;  in  other  words,  it  is  a  relinquishment  of  any  claim  to  restitution, 
it  is  compounding  for  a  part  of  their  rights.  Such  a  composition  is  not 
sinful;  it  is  not  more  criminal  than  it  was  for  a  friend  of  mine  in  Ire- 
land to  compound  for  a  portion  of  his  property  when  the  whole  was  in 
danger.  Bishop  Kemp  might  love  to  learn  the  facts.  Two  first  cousins 
well  known  in  one  of  the  southern  counties  were  Roman  Catholics  in  the 
year  1790,  and  had  good  estates ;  one  of  them  squandered  and  the  other 
improved;  the  spendthrift,  finding  his  property  vanished,  went  to  the 
Protestant  Church  and  abjured  the  errors  of  Popery,  and  was  thence- 
forth known  by  the  appellation  of  "Protestant  Tom."  The  industrious 
cousin,  "Catholic  Tom,"  received  notice  that  a  bill  was  filed  against 
him,  i7i  equity,  by  his  good  cousin  discovering  against  him,  for  that  he 
being  a  Papist  held  a  landed  estate,  value  three  thousand  pounds  sterling 
yearly,  which  estate  was  claimed  by  "Protestant  Tom"  as  having  duly 
conformed  to  the  Church  by  law  established,  and  being  therefore  legally 
entitled  to  the  same.  It  is  by  means  of  such  bills  of  discovery,  the  Irish 
Catholics  have  been  impoverished  and  sent  as  conscientious  and  impov- 
erished exiles  into  every  region  of  the  earth.  "Catholic  Tom"  had  no 
valid  plea,  in  bar  of  his  cousin's  claim,  because  he  really  was  a  Catholic 
and  had  the  land :  he  however  called  upon  his  goodly  cousin,  and  com- 
pounded with  him  by  selling  him  half  his  estate,  for  sixpence,  and  thus 
procuring  the  bill  of  discovery  to  be  taken  off  the  file  of  the  equitable 
Chancellor  of  Ireland.  I  have  seen  and  known  both;  "Protestant  Tom" 
I  knew  to  be  a  most  loyal  subject,  a  most  zealous  member  of  the  Bible 
distribution,  [who]  had  his  sons  duly  educated  in  the  principles  of 
the  Church  by  law  established,  and  provided  with  commissions  in  his 
majesty's  army  and  navy,  whilst  his  cousin  sometimes  fills  the  chair  at 
the  aggregate  meeting  of  his  county,  and  sees  his  sons  toiling  through 
the  labors  of  a  profession,  or  cultivating  the  remnant  of  his  patrimony. 
Was  it  a  sinful  act  in  him  to  make  this  composition?  As  little  sin  is 
there  in  the  Catholic  body  swearing  that  they  will  relinquish  to  the 


386  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


Protestant  Church,  that  establishment  which  it  already  possesses.  It  is 
lawful  to  relinquish  one  part  of  your  rights  to  secure  the  remainder: 
when  you  by  an  oath  engage  yourself  to  the  performance  of  a  lawful 
act,  your  oath  is  binding  and  valid;  though  no  previous  claim  bound, 
the  oath  now  binds  him  who  takes  it,  though  it  can  make  no  good  title 
for  him  who  exacts  it,  and  no  tribunal,  Papal  or  other,  can  declare 
that  what  is  originally  valid,  was  originally  invalid.  It  is  also  untrue 
to  assert,  as  "White  here  does,  that  Rome  has  been  silent  on  this  topic: 
for  the  oath  in  which  this  clause  is  contained,  has  been  repeatedly  exam- 
ined, and  approved  of  at  Rome..  I  shall  add  but  one  more  remark. 
This  oath  is  a  bond  or  pledge  to  a  solemn  contract  made  by  the  authority 
of  the  State,  in  which  the  dominion  of  property  exists ;  such  a  contract 
involves  the  rights  of  both  parties,  the  release  of  one  would  be  an  injus- 
tice to  the  other,  without  the  free  consent  of  this  other  party,  or  that 
of  the  State  was  given :  this  is  a  principle  of  natural  law,  in  which  the 
Pope  has  no  dispensing  power :  hence,  where  a  lawful  contract  is  made, 
and  conj&rmed  by  an  oath,  no  tribunal  has  the  power  of  dispensing  with 
that  oath,  for  this  dispensation  would  involve  the  violation  of  the  con- 
tract. 

How  many  falsehoods,  and  how  much  gross  ignorance  of  theological 
principles  are  contained  in  this  passage,  which  asserts  that  no  reliance 
is  to  be  placed  upon  the  oaths  of  Catholics?  Does  not  Bishop  Kemp 
know,  and  do  not  his  associates  know,  that  the  insulted  Irish  and  British 
Catholics  need  only  commit  one  perjury,  and  get  absolution  from  Rome, 
and  they  would  be  upon  an  equal  footing  with  their  Protestant  fellow- 
citizens?  But  because  they  value  their  oaths,  and  Rome  has  no  such 
absolutions  or  dispensations  to  give;  they  still  are  under  the  thraldom 
of  Protestant  persecution,  in  violation  of  a  solemn  treaty  ratified  by 
Protestant  oaths  on  earth,  and  by  the  adjuration  of  Heaven  above, 
by  the  Protestant  monarch,  who  pledged  himself  to  observe  this  violated 
contract. 

Good  God!  what  will  Europe  say  of  our  liberality,  when  she  shall 
hear  that  a  congregation  of  Protestant  Clergy-men,  with  a  Bishop  at 
their  head,  charge  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  with  hold- 
ing the  most  detestable  doctrine,  and  with  being  unworthy  of  credit  on 
their  solemn  oaths?  When  she  shall  find  them  advocating  the  violation 
of  the  treaty  of  Limerick,  and  calumniating  the  persecuted  British  and 
Irish  Catholics? 

Yours,  and  so  forth,  b.  c. 


two  CALUMNIES   OF  J.   BLANCO   WHITE  387 


LETTER  XXIII 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Feb.  13,  1827. 
To  the  Roman  CatJiolics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends, — Having  shown  that  we  have  been  grossly  misrepre- 
sented by  White  in  his  charge  of  our  disregard  of  oaths:  having  also 
shown  how  flagrantly  the  solemn  oaths  of  stipulations  and  contracts  with 
the  Irish  Catholics  were  violated  by  the  British  Protestants ;  I  shall  add 
only  one  fact,  to  which  I  challenge  Bishop  Kemp  and  his  associates  to 
find  me  a  parallel.  Doctor  Dopping,  the  Protestant  Bishop  of  Meath,  in 
Ireland,  preached  publicly  from  the  pulpit  of  a  Protestant  Church  in 
Dublin,  that  no  treaty  of  Protestants  favorable  to  Catholics  was  binding 
or  ought  to  be  observed.  It  is  true  that  some  of  his  brethren  dissented 
from  this  doctrine,  but  it  is  equally  true  that  the  King  of  England,  the 
head  of  his  Church,  followed  the  Bishop  of  Heath's  principle  in  prac- 
tice :  it  is  equally  true  that  the  Irish  parliament  has  done  likewise ;  not 
only  has  this  sermon  been  practically  observed  by  William  and  Mary, 
the  supreme  head  in  earth  of  the  English  Protestant  Church,  but  also 
of  their  successors  in  the  same  headship,  viz.  Anne,  George  I,  George 
II,  George  III,  and  his  present  sacred  majesty  George  IV,  supreme 
head  on  earth  of  the  Churches  of  England  and  Ireland.  Also  by  their 
several  privy  councils,  also  by  the  British  parliament,  since  the  union; 
which  councils  and  parliaments  were  all  Protestant,  and  were  and  are, 
in  fact,  the  supreme  governing  power  of  the  English  Protestant  Church. 

I  shall  conclude  this  topic  with  inserting  the  following  documents : 

Extract  from  the  declaration  of  the  Catholic  Bishops  in  Great  Britain, 
in  the  year  1826. 

Section  VII.     On  the  Ohligation  of  an  Oath. 

''Catholics  are  charged  with  holding  that  they  are  not  bound  by  any 
oath,  and  that  the  Pope  can  dispense  them  from  all  the  oaths  they  may 
have  taken. 

"We  cannot  sufficiently  express  our  astonishment  at  such  a  charge. 
We  hold  that  the  obligation  of  an  oath  is  most  sacred:  for  by  an  oath 
man  calls  the  Almighty  searcher  of  hearts  to  witness  the  sincerity  of 
his  conviction  of  the  truth  of  what  he  asserts;  and  his  fidelity  in  per- 
forming the  engagement  he  makes.  Hence,  whoever  swears  falsely,  or 
violates  the  lawful  engagement  he  has  confirmed  by  an  oath,  not  only 
offends  against  truth,  or  justice,  but  against  religion.  He  is  guilty  of 
the  enormous  crime  of  perjury. 

''No  power  in  any  Pope,  or  council,  or  in  any  individual  or  bodj"- 


388  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

of  men,  invested  with  authority  in  the  Catholic  Church,  can  make  it  law- 
ful for  a  Catholic  to  confirm  any  falsehood  by  an  oath ;  or  dispense  with 
any  oath  by  which  a  Catholic  has  confirmed  his  duty  of  allegiance  to 
his  sovereign,  or  any  obligation  of  duty  or  justice  to  a  third  person. 
He  who  takes  an  oath  is  bound  to  observe  it,  in  the  obvious  meaning 
of  the  words,  or  in  the  known  meaning  of  the  person  to  whom  it  is 
sworn. ' ' 

Extract  from  the  "True  Principles  of  Catholics,"  puhlished  in  1826, 
hy  the  Liverpool  Catholic  Defence  Society,  heing  the  repetition  of 
what  has  been  frequently  established  hy  the  British  Catholics. 

Sixth.  "Catholics  believe  that  in  order  to  enter  into  eternal  life, 
we  must  keep  the  commandments  of  God,  and  that,  Avith  his  grace,  they 
can  be  kept:  'And  they  were  both  righteous  before  God,  walking  in  all 
the  commandments  and  ordinances  of  the  Lord  blameless.'  {St.  Luke, 
i,  6).  And  that  whosoever  dies  under  the  guilt  of  a  wilful  breach  of  any 
one  of  these  divine  precepts,  will  be  eternally  lost.  That  no  power  on 
earth  can  grant  any  man  leave  to  break  the  least  commandment  of  God, 
or  commit  a  sin  of  what  kind  soever,  or  to  do  evil  with  an  intent  that 
good  may  proceed  from  it.  That  neither  the  Pope,  nor  any  man  living, 
can  dispense  with  the  laws  of  God,  or  make  it  lawful  for  any  one  to  lie, 
to  forswear  himself,  or  do  any  thing  whatsoever  that  is  forbidden  by 
the  divine  law." 

Extract  from  a  series  of  curses  to  which  every  Catholic  is  prepared  to 
answer  "Amen,"  repeatedly  puhlished  hy  the  English  Catholic 
divines  in  answer  to  their  Protestant  calumniators. 

' '  Cursed  is  he  who  believes  that  the  Pope  can  give  to  any,  upon  any 
occasion  whatsoever,  dispensations  to  lie  or  swear  falsely;  or  that  it  is 
lawful  for  any,  at  the  last  hour,  to  protest  himself  innocent  in  case  he  be 
guilty.     Catholic,  Amen." 

"Cursed  is  he  who  teaches  that  it  is  lawful  to  do  a  wicked  thing, 
though  it  be  for  the  interest  and  good  of  the  Mother-Church;  or  that 
any  evil  action  may  be  done,  that  good  may  ensue  from  it.  Catholic, 
Amen. ' ' 

"Cursed  be  all  Catholics  who  teach  or  believe  that  infamous  doc- 
trine called  Popery,  as  Protestants  understand  it;  and  cursed  may  we 
be,  if  we  do  not  detest  all  those  hellish  practises  and  doctrines  which 
they  force  on  us.     Catholic,  Amen." 

"Cursed  be  all  Catholics  who  will  not  obey  the  lawful  commands 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  389 

of  all  Protestant  authorities,  ^^  or  who  will  not  fulfil  their  duty,  in 
every  respect,  to  their  lawful  Protestant  king  and  country.     Catholic, 

"Cursed  be  all  Catholics,  if  in  answering  or  saying  Amen  to  any 
of  these  curses,  they  use  any  equivocations  or  mental  reservations,  or 
do  not  assent  to  them  in  the  common  and  obvious  sense  of  the  words. 
Catholic,  Amen,  Anien.'^ 

To  these  is  appended  the  following  note  in  the  publication  of  thd 
above  named  society: 

These  principles  have  been  a  thousand  times  attacked,  and  a  thou- 
sand times  proved  to  be  our  true  principles,  to  the  full  satisfaction  of 
thousands  of  well  disDosed  Protestants,  many  of  whom,  in  their  last 
moments,  were  reconciled  to  the  Catholic  Church ;  and  in  our  days,  noth- 
ing is  more  common,  than  such  like  reconciliations,  particularly  in  Lon- 
don, Manchester,  and  Liverpool.  Now,  we  defy  our  adversaries  to  prove 
one  solitary  instance  of  a  Roman  Catholic,  who,  in  his  last  moments, 
called  for  a  clergjonan  of  any  other  persuasion  than  that  of  his  own. 
Bishop  Porteus  failed  in  the  attempt,  w^hen  challenged  to  do  so,  by  the 
Right  Reverend  Dr.  Milner,  a  Roman  Catholic  Bishop. 

A  warning  to  Protestants:  "Thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness 
against  thy   (Catholic)   neighbor."     Eighth  Commandment. 

An  extract  from  an  exhortation  of  the  Roman  Catholic  clergy  of  Dublin, 
read  from  their  altars  on  the  3d  of  October,  1757.  ^* 

"We  are  no  less  zealous  than  ever  in  exhorting  you  to  abstain 
from  cursing,  swearing  and  blaspheming:  detestable  vices,  to  which  the 
poorer  sort  of  our  people  are  most  unhappily  addicted,  and  which  must 
at  one  time  or  other  bring  down  the  vengeance  of  heaven  upon  you  in 
some  visible  punishment,  unless  you  absolutely  refrain  from  them. 

"It  is  probable,  that,  from  hence,  some  people  have  taken  occasion 
to  brand  us  with  this  infamous  calumny,  that  we  need  not  fear  to  take 
false  oaths,  and  consequently  to  perjure  ourselves;  as  if  we  believed 
that  any  power  upon  earth  could  authorize  such  damnable  practices, 
or  grant  dispensations  for  this  purpose.  How  unjust  and  cruel  this 
charge  is,  you  know  by  our  instructions  to  you  both  in  public  and  pri- 
vate, in  which  we  have  ever  condemned  such  doctrines  as  false  and 
impious.  Others,  likewise,  may  easily  know  it  from  the  constant  behav- 
iour of  numbers  of  Roman  Catholics,   who  have  given  the  strongest 


"  Spiritual  matters  excepted. 

"From  the  Dublin  Journal  of  Oct.  4,  1757. 


390  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


proofs  of  their  abhorrence  of  those  tenets,  by  refusing  to  take  oaths, 
which,  however  conducive  to  their  temporal  interest,  appeared  to  them 
entirely  repugnant  to  the  principles  of  their  religion. 

''To  conclude,  be  just  in  your  dealings,  sober  in  your  conduct, 
religious  in  your  practice,  avoid  riots,  quarrels,  and  tumults;  and  thus 
you  will  approve  yourselves  good  citizens,  peaceable  subjects,  and  pious 
Christians." 

The  Catholic's  Test  of  Allegiance  prescribed  by  the  13th  and   14th, 
Geo.  Ill,  chapter  xxxv. 

I,  A  B,  do  take  Almighty  God  and  his  only  Son  Jesus  Christ  my 
Redeemer,  to  witness,  that  I  will  be  faithful  and  bear  true  allegiance 
to  our  most  gracious  sovereign  lord.  King  George  the  Third,  and  him 
defend  to  the  utmost  of  my  power  against  all  conspiracies  and  attempts 
whatever,  that  shall  be  made  against  his  person,  crown  and  dignity; 
and  I  will  do  my  utmost  endeavor  to  disclose  and  make  known  to  his 
majesty,  and  his  heirs,  all  treasons  and  traitorous  conspiracies,  which 
may  be  formed  against  him  or  them;  and  I  do  faithfully  promise  to 
maintain,  support  and  defend,  to  the  utmost  of  my  power,  the  succession 
of  the  crown  in  his  majesty's  family,  against  any  person  or  persons 
whatsoever,  hereby  utterly  renouncing  and  abjuring  any  obedience  or 
allegiance  unto  the  person  taking  upon  himself  the  style  and  title  oE 
Prince  of  Wales,  in  the  lifetime  of  his  father,  and  who,  since  his  death, 
is  said  to  have  assumed  the  style  and  title  of  King  of  Great  Britain 
and  Ireland,  by  the  name  of  Charles  the  Third,  and  to  any  person 
claiming  or  pretending  a  right  to  the  crown  of  these  realms;  and 
I  do  swear,  that  I  do  reject  and  detest  as  unchristian  and  impious  to 
believe,  that  it  is  lawful  to  murder  or  destroy  any  person  or  persons 
whatsoever,  for  or  under  pretence  of  their  being  heretics ;  and  also  that 
unchristian  and  impious  principle,  that  no  faith  is  to  be  kept  with 
heretics ;  I  further  declare,  that  it  is  no  article  of  my  faith,  and  that  I 
do  renounce,  reject,  and  abjure  the  opinion,  that  princes  excommunicated 
by  the  Pope  and  council,  or  by  any  authority  of  the  See  of  Rome,  or  by 
any  authority  whatsoever,  may  be  deposed  or  murdered  by  their  sub- 
jects, or  by  any  person  whatsoever;  and  I  do  promise,  that  I  will 
not  hold,  maintain,  or  abet,  any  such  opinion,  or  any  other  opin- 
ion, contrary  to  what  is  expressed  in  this  declaration;  and  I  do 
declare,  that  I  do  not  believe  that  the  Pope  of  Rome,  or  any 
other  foreign  prince,  prelate,  state,  or  potentate,  hath  or  ought  to 
have  any  temporal  or  civil  jurisdiction,  power,  superiority,  or  pre- 
eminence, directly  or  indirectly,  within  this  realm;  and  I  do  solemnly, 
in  the  presence  of  God,  and  his  only  Son,  Jesus  Christ,  my  Redeemer, 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO   WHITE  391 

profess,  testify,  and  declare,  that  I  do  make  this  declaration,  and  every 
part  thereof,  in  the  plain  and  ordinary  sense  of  the  words  of  this  oath, 
without  any  evasion,  equivocation,  or  mental  reservation  whatever,  and 
without  and  dispensation  already  granted  by  the  Pope  or  authority  of 
the  See  of  Rome,  or  any  other  person  whatever;  and  without  thinking 
that  I  am  or  can  be  acquitted  before  God  or  man,  or  absolved  of  this 
declaration,  or  any  part  thereof,  although  the  Pope,  or  any  other  person 
or  persons,  or  authority  whatsoever,  shall  dispense  with  or  annul  the 
same,  or  declare  that  it  was  null  and  void  from  the  beginning.  So 
help  me  God." 

QUERIES    TO    FOREIGN    UNIVERSITIES,    WITH    THEIR    ANSWERS. 

"When  the  committee  of  the  English  Catholics  (for  they  had  a 
committee  with  whom  the  English  ministers  of  the  crown  did  not  dis- 
dain to  communicate)  waited  on  Mr.  Pitt,  he  requested  to  be  furnished 
with  authentic  evidence  of  the  opinions  of  the  Catholic  clergy,  and  the 
Catholic  universities  abroad,  "with  respect  to  the  existence  and  extent 
of  the  Pope's  dispensing  power."  Three  questions  were  accordingly 
framed  and  sent  to  the  universities  of  Paris,  Louvain,  Alcala,  Douay, 
Salamanca,  and  Valladolid,  for  their  opinions. 

The  queries  and  answers  are  as  follows : 

THE  QUERIES, 

1.  Has  the  Pope,  or  Cardinals,  or  any  body  of  men,  or  any  indi- 
vidual of  the  Church  of  Rome,  any  civil  authority,  power,  jurisdiction, 
or  pre-eminence  whatsoever,  within  the  realm  of  England? 

2.  Can  the  Pope,  or  Cardinals,  or  any  body  of  men,  or  any  individ- 
uals of  the  Church  of  Rome,  absolve  or  dispense  with  his  majesty's  sub- 
jects, from  their  oath  of  allegiance  upon  any  pretext  whatsoever  ? 

3.  Is  there  any  principle  in  the  tenets  of  the  Catholic  faith,  by 
which  Catholics  are  justified  in  not  keeping  faith  with  heretics,  or  other 
persons  differing  from  them  in  religious  opinions,  in  any  transaction, 
either  of  a  public  or  a  private  nature  ? 

THE  ANSWERS. 

University  of  Paris :  After  an  introduction,  according  to  the  usual 
forms  of  the  university,  the  Sacred  Faculty  of  Divinity  of  Paris  answer 
the  first  query  by  declaring : 

Neither  the  Pope,  nor  the  Cardinals,  nor  any  body  of  men,  nor  any 
other  person  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  hath  any  civil  authority,  civil 


392  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

power,  civil  jurisdiction,  or  civil  pre-eminence  whatsoever,  in  any  king- 
dom ;  and,  consequently,  none  in  the  kingdom  of  England,  by  reason 
or  virtue  of  any  authority,  power,  jurisdiction,  or  pre-eminence,  by 
divine  institution  inherent  in,  or  granted,  or  by  any  other  means  be- 
longing to  the  Pope,  or  the  Church  of  Rome.  This  doctrine  the  Sacred 
Faculty  of  Divinity  of  Paris  has  always  held,  and  upon  every  occasion 
maintained,  and  upon  every  occasion  has  rigidly  proscribed  the  contrary 
doctrines  from  her  schools. 

Answer  to  the  second  query.  Neither  the  Pope,  nor  the  Cardinals, 
nor  any  body  of  them,  nor  any  person  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  can,  by 
virtue  of  the  keys,  absolve,  or  release  the  subjects  of  the  King  of  Eng- 
land from  their  oath  of  allegiance. 

This  and  the  first  query  are  so  intimately  connected,  that  the  answer 
of  the  first  immediately  and  naturally  applies  to  the  second,  and  so 
forth. 

Answer  to  the  third  query.  There  is  no  tenet  in  the  Catholic 
Church,  by  which  Catholics  are  justified  in  not  keeping  faith  with 
heretics,  or  those  who  differ  from  them  in  matters  of  religion.  The  tenet, 
that  it  is  lawful  to  break  faith  with  heretics,  is  so  repugnant  to  common 
honesty  and  the  opinions  of  Catholics,  that  there  is  nothing  of  which 
those  who  have  defended  the  Catholic  faith  against  Protestants,  have 
complained  more  heavily,  than  the  malice  and  calumny  of  their  ad- 
versaries in  imputing  this  tenet  to  them,  and  so  forth. 

Given  at  Paris  in  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Sorbonne,  held  on 
Thursday,  the  11th  day  before  the  Kalends  of  March,  1789. 

Signed  in  due  form. 

University  of  Douay :  To  the  first  and  second  queries  the  Sacred 
Faculty  answers — That  no  power  whatsoever,  in  civil  or  temporal  con- 
cerns, was  given  by  the  Almighty,  either  to  the  Pope,  the  Cardinals, 
or  the  Church  herself,  and,  consequently,  that  kings  and  sovereigns 
are  not  in  temporal  concerns,  subject  by  the  ordination  of  God,  to  any 
ecclesiastical  power  whatsoever ;  neither  can  their  subjects,  by  any  author- 
ity granted  to  the  Pope  or  Church,  from  above,  be  freed  from  their 
obedience,  or  absolved  from  their  oath  of  allegiance. 

This  is  the  doctrine  which  the  doctors  and  professors  of  divinity 
hold  and  teach  in  our  schools,  and  this  all  the  candidates  for  degrees 
in  divinity  maintain  in  their  public  theses,  and  so  forth. 

To  the  third  question  the  Sacred  Faculty  answers — That  there  is 
no  principle  of  the  Catholic  faith  by  which  Catholics  are  justified  in 
not  keeping  faith  with  heretics,  w'ho  differ  from  them  in  religious  opin- 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  393 


ion.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  the  unanimous  doctrine  of  Catholics,  that 
the  respect  due  to  the  name  of  God,  so  called  witness,  requires  that  the 
oath  be  inviolably  kept,  to  whomsoever  it  is  pledged,  whether  Catholic,. 
Heretic,  or  Infidel,  and  so  forth. 

Signed  and  sealed  in  due  form,  at  a  meeting  of  the  Faculty  of  Di- 
vinity of  the  University  of  Douay,  January  5,  1789. 

University  of  Louvain:  The  Faculty  of  Divinity  at  Louvain,  hav- 
ing been  requested  to  give  her  opinion  upon  the  questions  stated,  does 
it  with  readiness — but  struck  with  astonishment  that  such  questions 
should,  at  the  end  of  this  eighteenth  century,  be  proposed  to  any  learned 
body,  by  inhabitants  of  a  kingdom  that  glories  in  the  talents  and  dis- 
cernment of  its  natives.  The  Faculty  being  assembled  for  the  above 
purpose,  it  is  agreed  with  the  unanimous  assent  of  all  voices  to  answer 
the  first  and  second  queries  absolutely  in  the  negative. 

The  Faculty  does  not  think  it  incumbent  upon  her  in  this  place  to 
enter  upon  the  proofs  of  her  opinion,  or  to  show  how  it  is  supported  by 
passages  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  or  the  writing  of  antiquity. — That  has 
already  been  done  by  Bossuet,  De  Marca,  the  two  Barclays,  Goldastus, 
the  Pithffiuses,  Argentre  Widrington,  and  his  Majesty  King  James  the 
First,  in  his  dessertation  against  Bellarmine  and  Du  Perron,  and  by 
many  others,  and  so  forth. 

The  Faculty  then  proceeds  to  declare  that  the  sovereign  power  of 
the  State  is  in  no  wise  (not  even  indirectly  as  it  is  termed)  subject  to, 
or  dependant  upon  any  other  power,  though  it  be  a  spiritual  power,  or 
even  though  it  be  instituted  for  eternal  salvation,  and  so  forth. 

That  no  man  or  any  assembly  of  men,  however  eminent  in  dignity 
and  power,  not  even  the  whole  body  of  the  Catholic  Church,  though 
assembled  in  general  council,  can  upon  any  ground  or  pretense  whatso- 
ever, weaken  the  bond  of  union  between  the  sovereign  and  people;  still 
less  can  they  absolve  and  free  the  subjects  from  their  oath  of  allegiance. 

Proceeding  to  the  third  question,  the  said  Faculty  of  Divinity  (in 
perfect  wonder  that  such  a  question  should  be  proposed  to  her)  most 
positively  and  unequivocally  answers — That  there  is  not,  and  there 
never  has  been  among  the  Catholics,  or  in  the  doctrines  of  the  Church 
of  Rome,  any  law  or  principle  which  makes  it  lawful  for  the  Catholics 
to  break  their  faith  with  heretics,  or  others  of  a  different  persuasion 
from  themselves  in  matters  or  religion,  either  in  public  or  private  con- 
cerns. 

The  Faculty  declares  the  doctrine  of  the  Catholics  to  be,  that  the 
divine  and  natural  law,  which  makes  it  a  duty  to  keep  faith  and  prom- 


394  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


ises,  is  the  same;  and  is  neither  shaken  nor  diminished,  if  those  with 
whom  the  engagement  is  made,  hold  erroneous  opinions  in  matters  of 
religion,  and  so  forth. 

Signed  in  due  form  18th  of  Nov.,  1788. 

University  of  Alcala:  To  the  first  question  it  is  answered — That 
none  of  the  persons  mentioned  in  the  proposed  question,  either  indi- 
vidually, or  collectively  in  council  assembled,  have  any  right  in  civil 
matters;  but  that  all  civil  power,  jurisdiction  and  pre-eminence  are  de- 
rived from  inheritance,  election,  the  consent  of  the  people,  and  other 
such  titles  of  that  nature. 

To  the  second  it  is  answered,  in  like  manner — That  none  of  the 
persons  above  mentioned  have  a  power  to  absolve  the  subjects  of  his 
Britannic  Majesty  from  their  oaths  of  allegiance. 

To  the  third  question  it  is  answered — That  the  doctrine  which  would 
exempt  Catholics  from  the  obligation  of  keeping  faith  with  heretics,  or 
with  any  other  persons  who  dissent  from  them  in  matters  of  religion, 
instead  of  being  an  article  of  Catholic  faith,  is  entirely  repugnant  to 
its  tenets. 

Signed  in  usual  form,  March  17,  1789. 

University  of  Salamanca:  To  the  first  question  it  is  answered — 
That  neither  Pope  nor  Cardinals,  nor  any  assembly  or  individual  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  have  as  such,  any  civil  authority  power,  jurisdiction, 
or  pre-eminence  in  the  kingdom  of  England. 

To  the  second  it  is  answered — That  neither  Pope  nor  Cardinals, 
nor  any  assembly  or  individual  of  the  Catholic  Church,  can,  as  such, 
absolve  the  subjects  of  Great  Britain  from  their  oaths  of  allegiance,  or 
dispense  with  their  obligation. 

To  the  third  it  is  answered — That  it  is  no  article  of  Catholic  faith, 
that  Catholics  are  justified  in  not  keeping  faith  with  heretics,  or  with 
persons,  of  any  description,  who  dissent  from  them  in  matters  of  religion. 

Signed  in  the  usual  for,  March  7th,  1789. 

University  of  Valladolid:  To  the  first  question  it  is  answered — 
That  neither  Pope  nor  Cardinals,  or  even  a  general  council,  have  any 
civil  authority,  power,  jurisdiction,  or  pre-eminence,  directly  or  in- 
directly, in  the  kingdom  of  Great  Britain;  or  over  any  other  kingdom 
or  province  in  which  they  possess  no  temporal  dominion. 

To  the  second  it  is  answered — That  neither  Pope  nor  Cardinals, 
nor  even  a  general  council,  can  absolve  the  subjects  of  Great  Britain 
from  their  oaths  of  allegiance,  or  dispense  with  their  obligation. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF  J.    BLANCO    WHITE  395 

To  the  third  it  is  answered — That  the  obligation  of  keeping  is 
grounded  on  the  law  of  nature,  which  binds  all  men  equally,  without 
respect  to  their  religious  opinions;  and  with  regard  to  Catholics,  it  is 
still  more  cogent  as  it  is  confirmed  by  the  principles  of  their  religion. 

Signed  in  the  usual  form,  Feb.  17th,  1789. 

With  these  documents  before  us,  we  must  necessarily  say  that  if 
Catholics  are  regardless  of  the  obligation  of  an  oath,  the  British  Cath- 
olics and  the  Irish  Catholics  give  us  the  most  extraordinary  exhibition 
which  the  world  ever  saw ;  men  suffering  persecution  during  ages,  from 
which  persecution  tbey  might  be  relieved  merely  by  taking  an  oath,  and, 
yet  refusing  to  take  an  oath,  and  thus  remaining  under  affliction,  in 
preference  to  swearing  against  their  conviction,  though  we  aje  told, 
they  believed  that  they  may  be  dispensed  with  from  the  observation  of 
the  oath,  by  the  head  of  their  Church.  Is  it  possible  that  Bishop  Kemp 
and  his  associates  could  believe  this  to  be  the  fact?  If  they  do,  what 
must  we  think  of  their  intellect  ? 

Two  years  have  not  yet  elapsed  since  the  practical  illustration  of 
this  libel  upon  Catholics  was  made  in  this  State  of  South  Carolina,  in 
presence  of  the  honorable  Judge  Gaillard,  whilst  he  presided  in  the  court 
at  York  district.  I  have  the  fact  from  himself,  with  his  leave  to  use  it  as 
I  may  think  proper.  A  criminal  whose  guilt  was  proved,  was  about  to 
be  left  to  the  jury  for  their  verdict,  when  his  lawyer  seriously  offered  to 
prove  that  the  principle  witness  was  suspected  of  being  a  Catholic,  and 
therefore  incredible  upon  oath,  and  consequently  that  his  testimony 
should  go  for  nothing !  Judge  Gaillard,  though  a  member  of  the  same 
Church  as  Bishop  Kemp,  has  liberality  and  good  sense,  and  knows  more 
of  the  doctrine  of  our  Church  than,  I  believe,  does  the  Bishop,  disposed 
of  the  objection  as  he  ought.  But  what  shall  we  think  of  a  body  of  the 
clergy  of  those  States  who  publish  this  libel  in  White 's  book  ? 

I  now  copy  the  extract  from  White  upon  which  I  shall  next  pro- 
ceed to  comment. 

"It  would  be  much  more  difficult  to  explain  upon  what  creditable 
principle  of  their  Church  the  Catholic  divines  of  those  kingdoms  can 
give  their  approbation  to  oaths  tendered  for  the  security  of  the  Protest- 
ant establishment.  The  clergy  of  the  Church  of  England  have  been 
involved  in  a  general  and  indiscriminate  charge  of  hypocrisy  and  sim- 
ulation, upon  religious  matters.  It  would  ill  become  one  in  my  pecu- 
liar circumstances  to  take  up  the  defence  of  that  venerable  body;  yet 
I  cannot  dismiss  this  subject  without  solemnly  attesting,  that  the  strong- 
est impresions  which  enliven  and  support  my  Christian  faith,  are  de- 
rived from  my  friendly  intercourse  with  members  of  that  insulted  clergy ; 


396  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


while,  on  the  contrary,  I  knew  but  very  few  Spanish  priests  whose  talents 
or  acquirements  were  above  contempt,  who  had  not  secretly  renounced 
their  religion.  Whether  something  similar  to  the  state  of  the  Spanish 
clergy  may  not  explain  the  support  which  the  Catholic  priesthood  of 
these  kingdoms  seem  to  give  to  oaths  so  abhorrent  from  the  belief  of 
their  Church,  as  those  which  must  precede  the  admission  of  members 
of  that  Church  into  parliament ;  I  will  not  undertake  to  say.  If  there  be 
conscientious  believers  among  them,  which  I  will  not  doubt  for  a  moment, 
and  they  are  not  forced  into  silence,  as  I  suspect  it  is  done  in  similar 
cases,  I  feel  assured  that  they  will  earnestly  deprecate  and  condemn 
all  engagements  on  the  part  of  the  Roman  Catholics,  to  support  and  de- 
fend the  Church  of  England.  Such  an  engagement  implies  either  a 
renunciation  of  the  tenet  excluding  Protestants  from  the  benefits  of 
Gospel  promises,  or  a  shocking  indifference  to  the  eternal  welfare  of 
men. 

"If  your  leaders,  whom  it  would  be  uncharitable  to  suspect  of  the 
latter  feeling,  have  so  far  receded  from  the  Roman  creed  as  to  allow 
us  the  common  privileges  of  Christianity,  and  conscientiously  swear 
to  protect  and  encourage  the  interests  of  the  Church  of  England,  let 
them,  in  the  name  of  truth,  speak  openly  before  the  world,  and  be  the 
first  to  remove  that  obstacle  to  mutual  benevolence,  and  perfect  com- 
munity of  political  privileges— the  doctrine  of  exclusive  salvation  in 
your  Church.  Cancel  but  that  one  article  from  your  creed,  and  all 
liberal  men  in  Europe  will  offer  you  the  right  hand  of  fellowship.  Your 
other  doctrines  concern  but  yourselves;  this  endangers  the  peace  and 
freedom  of  every  man  living,  and  that  in  proportion  to  your  goodness: 
it  makes  your  very  benevolence  a  curse.  Believe  a  man  who  has  spent 
the  best  years  of  his  life  where  Catholicism  is  professed  without  check 
of  dissenting  opinion;  where  it  luxuriates  on  the  soil,  which  fire  and 
sword  have  cleared  of  whatever  might  stunt  its  natural  and  genuine 
growth ;  a  growth  incessantly  watched  over  by  the  head  of  your  Church, 
and  his  authorized  representatives,  the  Inquisitors.  Alas!  'I  have  a 
mother!'  outweighed  all  other  reasons  for  a  change,  in  a  man  of  genius,!^ 
who  yet  cared  not  to  show  his  indifference  to  the  religious  system  under 
which  he  was  born.  I,  too,  'had  a  mother,'  and  such  a  mother  as,  did 
I  possess  the  talents  of  your  great  poet,  tenfold,  they  would  have  been 
honored  in  doing  homage  to  the  powers  of  her  mind  and  the  goodness  of 
her  heart.  No  woman  could  love  her  children  more  ardently,  and  none 
of  those  children  was  more  vehemently  loved  than  myself.     But  the 

"Pope:  see  his  letter  to  Atterbury  on  this  subject. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  397 

Roman  Catholic  creed  had  poisoned  in  her  the  purest  source  of  affection. 
I  saw  her,  during  a  long  period,  unable  to  restrain  her  tears  in  my  pres- 
ence. I  perceived  that  she  shunned  my  conversation,  especially  when 
my  university  friends  drew  me  into  topics  above  those  of  domestic  talk. 
I  loved  her;  and  this  behaviour  cut  me  to  the  heart.  In  my  distress  T 
applied  to  a  friend  to  whom  she  used  to  communicate  all  her  sorrows ; 
and,  to  my  utter  horror,  I  learnt  that,  suspecting  me  of  Anti-Catholic 
principles,  my  mother  was  distracted  by  the  fear  that  she  might  be 
obliged  to  accuse  me  to  the  Inquisition,  if  I  incautiously  uttered  some 
condemned  proposition  in  her  presence.  To  avoid  the  barbarous  neces- 
sity of  being  the  instrument  of  my  ruin,  she  could  find  no  other  means  but 
that  of  shunning  my  presence.  Did  this  unfortunate  mother  overrate  or 
mistake  the  nature  of  her  Roman  Catholic  duties  ?  By  no  means.  The 
inquisition  was  established  by  the  supreme  authority  of  her  Church; 
and,  under  that  authority,  she  was  enjoined  to  accuse  any  person  what- 
ever, whom  she  might  overhear  uttering  heretical  opinions.  No  excep- 
tion was  made  in  favor  of  fathers,  children,  husbands,  wives :  to  conceal 
was  to  abet  their  errors,  and  doom  two  souls  to  eternal  perdition.  A  sen- 
tence of  excommunication,  to  be  incurred  in  the  fact,  was  annually  pub- 
lished against  all  persons,  who  having  heard  a  proposition  directly  or 
indirectly  contrary  to  the  Catholic  faith,  omitted  to  inform  the  inquis- 
itors upon  it.     Could  any  sincere  Catholic  slight  such  a  command  ? 

"Such  is  the  spirit  of  the  ecclesiastical  power  to  which  you  sub- 
mit. The  monstrous  laws  of  which  I  speak,  do  not  belong  to  a  remote 
period:  they  existed  in  full  force  fifteen  years  ago:  they  were  repub- 
lished, under  the  authority  of  the  Pope,  at  a  later  period.  If  some  of 
your  writers  assume  the  tone  of  freedom  which  belongs  to  this  age  and 
country ;  if  you  profess  your  faith  without  compulsion ;  you  may  thank 
the  Protestant  laws  which  protect  you.  Is  there  a  spot  in  the  universe 
where  a  Roman  Catholic  may  throw  off  his  mental  allegiance,  except 
where  Protestants  have  contended  for  that  right,  and  sealed  it  with 
their  blood?  I  know  that  your  Church  modifies  her  intolerance  accord- 
ing to  circumstances,  and  that  she  tolerates  in  France,  after  the  rev- 
olution, the  Hugeunots,  whom  she  would  have  burnt  in  Spain  a  few  years 
ago,  and  whom  she  would  doom  to  some  indefinite  punishment,  little  short 
of  the  stake,  at  the  present  moment.  Such  conduct  is  unworthy  of  the 
claims  which  Rome  contends  for,  and  would  disgrace  the  most  obscure 
leader  of  a  paltry  sect.  If  she  still  claims  the  right  of  wielding  'the 
sword  of  Peter,'  why  does  she  conceal  it  under  her  mantle?  If  not, 
why  does  she  not  put  an  end  to  more  than  half  the  miseries  and  degra- 
dation of  Italy,  Spain,  Portugal,  and  Spanish  America,  by  at  once  de- 


398  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


daring  that  men  are  accountable  only  to  God  for  their  religious  belief, 
and  that  sincere  and  conscientious  persuasion  must  both  in  this  and 
the  next  world,  be  a  valid  plea  for  the  pardon  of  error?  Does  the 
Church  of  Rome  really  profess  this  doctrine  ?  It  is  then  a  sacred  duty 
for  her  to  remove  at  once  that  scandal  of  Christianity,  that  intolerance 
which  the  conduct  of  Popes  and  councils  has  invariably  upheld.  But  if, 
as  I  am  persuaded,  Rome  still  thinks  in  conformity  with  her  former 
conduct,  and  yet  the  Roman  Catholics  of  these  kingdoms  dissent  from 
her  on  this  point,  they  have  already  begun  to  use  the  Protestant  right  of 
private  judgment  upon  one  of  the  articles  of  their  faith;  and  I  may 
hope  that  they  will  follow  me  in  the  examination  of  that  alleged  divine 
authority  by  which  they  are  prevented  from  extending  it  to  all." 
This  passage  I  shall  consider  in  my  next. 

Yours,  and  so  forth, 

B.  c. 

LETTER  XXIV 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Feb.  19,  1827. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends, — I  proceed  now  to  examine  the  paragraph  of  White's 
Evidence,  which  I  added  to  my  last  letter. 

The  extract  commences  with  a  fallacious  change  of  terms,  which 
fallacy  is  continued  with  increased  dishonesty  through  the  entire  pas- 
age;  every  logician  knows  that  a  change  of  terms  is  the  most  criminal 
species  of  bad  reasoning.  I  need  only  exhibit  to  you  the  fact,  and  quote 
the  expression  of  White. 

I  have  in  my  former  letters  shown  that  the  object  of  this  man's 
employers  was  to  perpetuate  the  exclusion  of  Roman  Catholics  from 
the  British  houses  of  parliament.     For  this  purpose  he  writes  in  page  53 : 

"At  the  time  when  I  am  writing  this,  one  branch  of  the  legislature 
has  declared  itself  favorable  to  what  is  called  Catholic  emancipation; 
and,  for  any  thing  I  can  conjecture,  Roman  Catholics  may  be  allowed 
to  sit  in  parliament  before  these  letters  appear  in  public.  A  Roman 
Catholic  legislator  of  Protestant  England  would,  indeed,  feel  the  weight 
of  the  difficulty  to  which  my  suggested  question  alludes,  provided  his 
attachment  to  the  Roman  Catholic  faith  were  sincere. ' ' 

And  in  pages  56  and  57,  he  has  the  following  passage  addressed  to 
the  Catholic  clergy : 

"A  conscientious  Roman  Catholic  may,  for  the  sake  of  public  peace, 
and  in  the  hope  of  finally  serving  the  cause  of  his  Church,  obstensibly 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  399 

give  a  free  course  to  heresy.  But,  if  it  may  be  done  without  such  dan- 
gers, it  is  his  unquestionable  duty  to  undermine  a  system  of  which  the 
direct  tendency  is,  in  his  opinion,  the  spiritual  and  final  ruin  of  men. 
Is  there  a  Catholic  divine  who  can  dispute  this  doctrine?  Is  there  a 
learned  and  conscientious  priest  among  you,  who  would  give  absolutiion 
to  such  a  person  as,  having  it  in  his  power  so  to  direct  his  votes  and  con- 
duct in  parliament  as  to  diminish  the  influence  of  Protestant  principles, 
without  disturbing  or  alarming  the  country,  would  still  heartily  and 
steadfastly  join  in  promoting  the  interests  of  the  English  Church." 

The  Protestant  dissenter  who  sits  in  the  British  Parliament  is  not 
required  to  swear  or  to  promise  that  he  will  "heartily  and  steadfastly 
join  in  promoting  the  interest  of  the  English  Church."  The  Catholic 
seeks  admittance  only  upon  that  principle,  upon  which  it  has  been  con- 
ceded to  the  Presbyterian,  to  the  Baptist,  to  the  Unitarian,  and  to  the 
Jew,  for  I  believe  there  are  members  of  that  nation  in  the  British  Par- 
liament, I  know  there  were ;  and  I  know  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  their 
admission ;  for  the  oath  of  supremacy  and  the  Test  Act  are  equivalently 
repealed,  and  there  is  no  oath  now  required,  save  that  of  allegiance, 
and  of  abjuration  of  Popery.  Thus,  in  fact,  the  British  House  of  Par- 
liament is  open  to  every  and  to  any  person  of  any  religion,  or  of  no  re- 
ligion, unless  he  be  a  Roman  Catholic.  Hence,  the  case  is  grossly  mis- 
stated by  "White,  in  asserting  that  a  Roman  Catholic  would,  upon  enter- 
ing parliament,  be  obliged  to  swear  that  he  would  "heartily  and  stead- 
fastly join  in  promoting  the  interests  of  the  English  Church."  The 
Catholic  only  requires  to  have  the  oath  and  declaration  against  Popery 
consigned,  together  with  Test  Act  and  the  oath  of  supremacy,  to  the 
tomb  of  all  the  Capulets. 

But  a  difficulty  arose  in  the  minds  of  the  English  churchmen  re- 
specting Catholics,  and  was  special  in  their  case.  They  knew  that  all 
their  rich  benefices  were  but  the  remnants  of  donations  given  by  pious 
Catholics  during  centuries  to  their  own  Catholic  Church;  and  their 
terrors  arose  at  the  prospect  of  restitution.  It  was  not  the  pang  of  a 
lacerated  conscience,  but  the  terror  of  an  avaricious  heart,  which  pro- 
claimed, "Beware  of  those  Catholics,  for  they  will  reclaim  the  property 
of  their  Church."  Thus  the  whole  bench  of  Bishops,  with  him  of 
Osnaburg  as  their  blaspheming  leader,  arose  to  vote  for  the  eternal 
exclusion  of  the  Catholic.  The  whole,  did  I  write?  No!  The  good,  the 
just,  the  benevolent  Bathurst  of  Norwich,  and  the  fearless  and  upright 
Bishop  of  Rochester,  would  not  unite  with  the  ruthless  oppressors.  The 
Catholics  assured  the  houses,  long  before,  that  upon  this  subject  they 
need  have  no  dread,  and  swore,  and  continue  to  swear,  that  "they  will 


400  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


not  use  any  right  or  privilege  which  they  now  enjoy,  and  may  become 
entitled  to,  by  any  act  of  the  legislature  in  their  favor,  in  order  to  sub- 
vert or  disturb  the  establishment  of  the  Church,  now  by  law  Protestant, 
for  the  purpose  of  substituting  a  Roman  Catholic  establishment  in  its 
stead."  Thus  they  gave  those  oaths,  whose  value  has  endured  so  search- 
ing a  test  as  a  guarantee  that  this  terror  was  without  foundation.  Have 
you,  my  friends,  ever  known  the  possessor  of  rapine  disposed  to  believe 
the  declarations  of  the  injured  party,  that  he  will  seek  no  restitution? 
Men  generally  judge  of  others  by  themselves.  But  this  is  not  my  ob- 
ject. The  truth  is,  then,  that  a  Roman  Catholic,  if  admissable  to  par- 
liament, would  not  be  required  to  swear  that  he  would  "promote  the 
interest  of  the  Protestant  Church;"  but  he  would  be  required  to  swear 
not  "to  take  its  income  away,  for  the  purpose  of  giving  it  to  the  Cath- 
olic Church." 

Thus  the  writer  of  the  Evidence  was  guilty  of  misstatement,  when 
he  insinuated  that  a  Catholic  would  be  required  to  swear  ' '  that  he  would 
heartily  and  steadily  join  in  promoting  the  interests  of  the  English 
Church."  In  the  passage  before  us,  he  commences  by  stating  accurate- 
ly the  fact,  in  page  70,  where  he  mentions  that  "the  Catholic  divines  of 
those  kingdoms  give  their  approbation  to  oaths  tendered  for  the  security 
of  the  Protestant  establishment. ' '  Security  is  not  promotion  of  interest, 
and  there  is  a  wide  difference  between  a  Church  and  an  establishment, 
as  Bishop  Kemp  himself  feelingly  knows.  Not  only  does  this  wide  dif- 
ference exist,  but  one  still  more  palpable ;  for  if  by  any  sophistry,  the  two 
phrases  could  be  brought  to  appear  as  equivalent  to  each  other,  still 
the  Catholic  could  not  be  said  to  promote  the  interests  of  the  Protestant 
Church  by  taking  an  oath ;  but  that  interest  is  promoted  by  the  Protest- 
ant legislature,  which,  by  requiring  the  oath,  secures  the  establishment 
against  the  aggression  of  the  Catholics;  so  that  the  requisition  of  this 
oath  is  perpetual  evidence  of  the  continued  disposition  of  the  Catholic 
not  to  secure  the  establishment  by  his  own  act.  Yet  this  is  what  White 
calls,  in  page  71,  "oaths  abhorrent  from  the  belief  of  their  own  Church, 
w^hich  must  precede  the  admission  of  Catholics  into  parliament;"  "en- 
gagements on  the  part  of  the  Roman  Catholics,  to  support  and  defend 
the  Church  of  England."  In  page  72,  "conscientiously  swear  to  protect 
and  encourage  the  interests  of  the  Church  of  England. ' '  The  whole  of 
White's  argument  is,  then,  based  upon  a  false  assumption,  viz.  that 
Roman  Catholics  seek  admission  into  parliament  upon  the  condition  that 
they  will  swear  "heartily  and  steadily  to  protect  and  to  promote  the 
interests  of  the  Protestant  Church. ' '  Whereas,  the  fact  is,  they  seek  it 
only  upon  the  condition  of  not  asking  to  resume  the  property  of  which 


two  CALUMNIES  OF  J.  BLANCO  WHITE  401 


they  and  their  Church  have  been  plundered  by  Henry  VIII,  the  pro- 
tectors of  Edward  VI,  Elizabeth,  the  Stuarts,  and  the  House  of  Hanover, 
imder  the  pretext  of  reforming  religion.  And  the  writer  of  the  Evi- 
dence, by  a  gradual  strengthening  of  his  impressions,  and  using  the 
weaker  and  the  stronger,  as  if  their  meaning  was  the  same,  deludes  the 
great  body  of  his  readers  who  hastily  glance  along  his  pages.  Was  this 
the  case  with  the  body  of  the  American  clergy  who  gave  the  book  to 
their  flocks?  Were  they  misled  by  the  sophistry?  Or  were  they 
ignorant  of  the  facts?  Or,  knowing  the  delusion,  did  they  recommend 
the  book  for  the  charitable  purpose  of  creating  an  unfavorable  impression 
of  the  claims  of  the  persecuted  Catholics  of  the  British  empire,  and  a 
dislike  of  the  Catholics  of  this  Union  ? 

White  next  asserts,  that  ''the  clergy  of  the  Church  of  England  have 
been  involved  in  a  general  and  indiscriminate  charge  of  hypocrisy  and 
simulation  upon  religious  matters. ' '  As  he  does  not  specify  the  grounds 
of  the  charge,  nor  the  person  by  whom  it  is  made,  I  am  left  solely  to 
conjecture.  I  have  frequently  heard  a  conclusion  drawn  from  premises 
which  were  never  questioned;  and  this  conclusion  in  some  degree  in- 
volved the  charge.  (1).  It  is  a  notorious  fact,  that  the  clergy  of  the 
Church  of  England  subscribe,  and  perhaps  swear,  their  assent  and 
consent  to  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the  Church,  on  several  occasions 
of  the  most  solemn  and  religious  description.  (2).  It  is  a  notorious 
fact,  that  a  vast  portion  of  the  clergy  that  have  thus  subscribed,  pub- 
licly declare  that  they  do  not  believe  the  truth  of  several  of  those  articles. 
(3).  It  is  a  notorious  fact,  that  during  a  very  long  period  some  divines 
of  that  Church  have  maintained  that  no  person  can  conscientiously  sub- 
scribe his  assent  and  consent  to  articles  which  he  believes  to  be  false. 
(4).  It  is  a  notorious  fact  that  during  an  equally  long  period,  some 
divines  of  that  Church  have  maintained  that  a  person  may  conscientious- 
ly subscribe  his  assent  and  consent  to  articles  of  religion  which  he  believes 
not  to  be  true,  provided  he  does  not  intend  to  preach  against  them,  or 
to  teach  a  doctrine  which  contradicts  them.  (5).  It  is  a  notorious  fact, 
that  the  great  bulk  of  the  clergy  of  the  Protestant  Church  of  England 
and  of  Ireland,  avow  that  they  subscribe  upon  this  last  principle, 
and  that  they  do  not  believe  all  the  doctrines  contained  in  those  articles 
to  be  true.  From  those  facts,  the  inference  has  been  frequently  drawn ; 
and  I  think  that  the  writer  of  the  Evidence  acted  very  wisely  in  not 
undertaking  the  defence  of  ' '  that  venerable  body. ' ' 

I  have  already  shown  how  very  little  reliance  is  to  be  placed  upon 
White  as  a  witness,  and  therefore  we  can  easily  Imow  the  value  of  his 
assertion  that  "the  strongest  impressions  which  enliven  and  support 


402  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

his  Christian  faith  are  derived  from  his  friendly  intercourse  with  mem- 
bers of  that  insulted  clergy."  For  my  part  I  know  from  "White's  own 
book  that  he  does  not  assent  to  the  truth  of  the  articles  of  the  Church  of 
England  or  he  writes  what  he  does  not  believe,  and  besides  this  certain 
knowledge,  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  he  has  no  Christian  faith.  I  am 
at  a  loss  to  know  how  the  English  Protestant  clergy  are  insulted  by 
believing  their  own  testimony  of  themselves,  viz.  that  they  do  not  as  a 
body  believe  in  the  truth  of  those  articles  to  which  they  have  sworn  or 
at  least  subscribed  their  assent  and  consent :  and  I  must  avow  that  it 
would  be  adding  to  my  stock  of  information,  if  the  process  were  ex- 
plained by  which  a  man  is  confirmed  in  Christian  faith  by  friendly  inter- 
course with  a  clergy  who  are  not  agreed  as  to  the  articles  which  ought 
to  be  believed  as  being  the  revelation  of  Christ.  But  surely  we  would 
be  more  to  blame,  if  instead  of  taking  the  character  of  the  Protestant 
clergy  of  England  from  themselves,  we  were  to  seek  out  some  profli- 
gate, who  had  in  his  early  youth  undertaken  the  solemn  obligations  of 
the  ministry  with  a  Imowledge  that  he  had  not  the  requisite  qualifica- 
tions; who  spent  his  best  years  with  irreligious  companions  in  low  de- 
bauch, who  studied  the  worst  works  of  infidels,  to  destroy  in  himself 
that  faith  which  he  preached  to  the  people,  upon  which  he  lived,  who 
closed  his  career  of  ten  years'  hypocrisy  by  vilifying  his  family,  and 
who  having  fled  from  the  punishment  due  to  his  multiplied  crimes  to  a 
land  which  persecuted  the  professors  of  his  ancient  Church,  of  his 
father's  land,  earned  the  protection  of  its  oppressive  government  by 
entreating  it  to  continue  its  persecution ;  and  calumniated  his  brethren 
for  the  purpose  of  palliating  the  criminality  of  that  persecution.  In  a 
word,  we  prefer  doing  as  we  have  done,  to  acting  as  Bishop  Kemp  and 
his  associates  have  done,  when  they  adduced  the  wretched  "White  as  the 
witness  against  the  Catholic  world.  From  their  own  mouths  we  take 
the  testimony  upon  which  we  prove  our  charges  against  our  opponents. 
"We  are  assailed  by  the  testimony  of  the  profligates  whom  we  have  cast 
out,  bolstered  up  by  men  who  fill  respectable  offices. 

Upon  such  testimony  as  this,  Bishop  Kemp  and  his  associates  have 
ventured  to  tell  their  flocks  that  there  were  "but  few  Spanish  priests 
whose  talents  or  requirements  were  above  contempt,  who  had  not  sec- 
retly renounced  their  religion."  I  say  they  tell  this  to  their  flocks, 
because  they  assure  them  that  they  may  rely  upon  the  statement  of 
"White  who  says,  page  70,  that  he  knew  this  to  be  a  fact.  I  tell  those 
gentlemen  that  such  is  not  the  fact.  But  if  it  was,  see  the  dilemma  to 
which  they  are  reduced.  They  assert  [that]  the  bigotry  of  the  Spanish 
clergy  is  the  proof  of  the  bigotry  of  Roman  Catholics;  they  assert  that 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO   WHITE  403 

the  Spanish  clergy  are  not  Roman  Catholics.  Now  if  they  are  not  them- 
selves members  of  our  Church,  why  impute  to  us  their  bigotry,  if  they  are 
bigots?  As  for  the  miserable  exception  of  those  whose  talents  or  ac- 
quirements were  below  contempt:  I  can  assure  the  "venerable  body" 
that  it  would  be  found  very  small  indeed.  "The  ignorant  clergy  of 
Spain"  is  a  fashionable  phrase,  but  if  it  is  a  true  phrase,  I  believe  we 
shall  find  a  very  ignorant  clergy  in  other  parts  of  the  world,  and  per- 
haps even  the  Protestant  clergy  of  Baltimore,  Philadelphia,  and  Wash- 
ington would  not  escape ;  White  is  himself  looked  upon  as  not  an  ignor- 
ant man  in  the  English  University  of  Oxford,  and  in  1817,  he  published 
at  Oxford  a  series  of  lectures  upon  the  study  of  religion;  yet  he  avows 
in  page  17,  that  he  "was  not  of  sufficient  standing"  to  obtain  a  degree 
of  licentiate  of  divinity  at  the  Spanish  University  of  Seville,  and  he 
avows  in  the  note  of  that  page,  that  a  licentiate  must  undergo  a  severe 
examination  before  he  can  obtain  either  the  rights  or  the  honors  of 
Doctorship.  Some  of  the  best  informed  theologians  whom  I  have  ever 
met  with  were  educated  amongst  this  "ignorant  Spanish  clergy."  In 
their  schools  were  formed  some  of  the  best  teachers  from  whom  I  ever 
imbibed  any  knowledge;  and  for  my  own  part  I  must  avow,  [that] 
when  I  hear  any  person  speak  of  the  gross  ignorance  of  the  Spanish 
Clergy,  I  suspect  he  never  had  an  opportunity  of  knowing  what  they  are, 
or  was  unable  to  turn  that  opportunity  to  account.  I  must  avow  my  mis- 
fortune ,  if  misfortune  it  is,  that  I  have  studied  under  no  better  masters 
than  those  formed  altogether  in  the  Spanish,  the  Portuguese,  the  Flemish, 
the  French,  and  the  Italian  schools :  hence  I  may  obtain  some  of  the  com- 
miseration of  the  "venerable  body,"  in  regard  to  my  stinted  opportuni- 
ties :  and  they  will  perhaps  still  more  pity  the  delusion  which  leads  me 
to  boast  that  I  owe  all  my  knowledge  to  priests,  and  to  thank  Heaven 
that  to  England  I  owe  nothing,  save  the  detestation  of  her  persecution 
and  the  forgiveness  of  her  injuries.  This  libellous  attack  of  White's 
upon  the  Spanish  Clergy,  has  in  Europe  called  forth  a  triumphant  re- 
futation, and  the  most  ample  testimonies  have  been  given  to  the  worth, 
the  learning  and  the  virtue  of  the  calumniated  Spanish  Clergy ;  no  per- 
son will  deny  that  there  are  criminals  to  be  found  in  their  body,  as  a 
criminal  was  to  be  found  in  the  Apostolic  band;  but  collectively  taken, 
the  Clergy  are  learned  and  virtuous.  There  must  be  exceptions,  of 
which  White  himself  is  an  unfortunate  exemplification.  In  Ireland 
the  venerable,  learned,  and  virtuous  Primate  of  Armagh,  the  amiable 
and  talented  Primate  of  Dublin,  the  Archbishop  of  Tuam,  the  Bishops 
of  Ardagh  and  of  Ossory,  are,  and  the  late  Archbishop  of  Cashel,  was, 
an  exhibition  of  the  Spanish  School,  as  the  Bishop  of  Kildare  and  Leigh- 


404  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

lin,  (Doyle,)  and  the  Bishop  of  Waterford  and  Lismore  are  of  the  Por- 
tuguese. In  the  searching  examinations  before  the  committees  of  the 
British  Parliament,  most  of  those  Prelates  were  closely  and  elaborate- 
ly and  ingeniously  sifted,  and  won  the  approbation  and  esteem  and 
respect  of  their  very  enemies,  whilst  the  only  Protestant  Prelate  whom 
Ireland  exhibits  as  a  theologian,  Magee  of  Dublin,  so  far  lost  himself 
in  the  House  of  Lords,  that  not  only  did  he  sink  in  the  estimation  of  the 
committee,  but  it  was  resolved  that  a  portion  of  his  testimony  should  be 
expunged,  and  expunged  it  was !  The  American  Clergy  who  have  drawn 
us  into  this  discussion,  must  be  very  ignorant  of  the  state  of  things 
across  the  Atlantic,  or  totally  heedless  of  the  consequence  of  their  assaults 
upon  us  here  with  their  imported  weapons.     I  advise  them  to  be  quiet. 

The  next  passage  is  as  little  founded  in  decency  as  it  is  fact,  "that 
the  Catholic  priesthood  of  these  kingdoms"  are  "in  a  state  similar  to 
the  Spanish  clergy,"  that  this  "may  explain  the  support  which  they 
seem  to  give  to  oaths  so  abhorrent  from  the  belief  of  their  Church,"  viz. 
"those  which  must  precede  the  admission  of  Catholics  into  Parliament." 
"If  there  are  conscientious  believers  amongst  the  Catholic  priesthood, 
they  are  either  forced  into  silence  or  they  deprecate  those  oaths. ' ' 

Here  are  a  number  of  distinct  and  calumnious  falsehoods  brought 
forward  to  explain  a  fable. 

The  fable  is,  that  the  Catholics  previous  to  being  admitted  into  Par- 
liament engaged  to  swear  that  they  will  support  and  defend  the  Church 
of  England.     The  calumnious  falsehoods  are — 

1.  That  very  few  Spanish  priests  whose  talents  or  acquirements 
were  above  contempt,  adhered  conscientiously  to  their  religion. 

2.  That  only  the  supposition  of  the  Irish  and  English  Catholic 
priesthood  being  in  a  similar  state  could  rationally  explain  their  conduct. 

3.  That  the  oath  required  of  Catholics  previous  to  their  admission 
into  Parliament,  is  abhorrent  from  the  belief  of  their  Church. 

This  proposition,  perhaps,  is  not  a  falsehood,  for  it  is  nonsense.  I 
do  not  know  how  an  oath  can  feel  horror,  or  how  it  can  be  abhorrent 
from  belief:  however,  as  Mr.  White  is  a  foreigner,  I  shall  give  what  I 
suppose  he  meant  by  what  he  wrote,  viz: 

The  oath  is  in  opposition  to  the  tenets  of  the  Catholic  Church. 

4.  In  those  cases,  conscientious  believers  deprecate  and  condemn 
the  oath  and  engagement. 

5.  But  in  those  cases  they  are  forced  into  silence. 

6.  Such  force  has  been  used  in  similar  cases. 

7.  The  engagement  implies  either  a  renunciation  of  the  tenet  ex- 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  405 


eluding  Protestants  from  the  benefits  of  the  Gospel  promises  or  a  shock- 
ing indifference  to  the  eternal  welfare  of  man. 

The  last  is  not  so  properly  a  false  statement  as  a  false  inference, 
and  may  be  dismissed  by  merely  observing  that  the  disjunction  is  not 
good,  as  several  middle  propositions  might  be  found  as  alternatives ;  and 
next,  as  the  engagement  is  only  a  promise  not  to  seek  for  restitution  of 
Church  property,  it  has  nothing  to  do  either  with  Gospel  promises  or  in- 
difference to  man's  salvation. 

An  attempt  is  made  in  the  following,  to  sustain  the  sixth  proposi- 
tion : — 

I  recollect  something  about  the  persecution  of  Mr.  Gandolphy,  a  London  priest, 
who  was  obliged  to  appeal  to  Rome  against  the  persecution  of  his  brethren,  for  expos- 
ing too  freely  the  doctrines  which  might  increase  the  difficulties  of  the  Catholic  eman- 
cipation. The  Pope  did  not  condemn  him.  Since  I  have  seen  the  case  of  Mr.  Gan- 
dolphy  stated  in  an  able  publication  Croly's  Popery  and  the  Popish  Question.  Mr. 
G's  doctrines  were  highly  approved  at  Rome. 

It  would  have  been  much  more  to  the  purpose  to  state  correctly  and 
fully  the  proof  than  to  pretend  it  existed.  Mr.  Gandolphy's  case  has 
nothing  in  it  which  can  support  the  truth  of  the  above  proposition :  as  I 
do  not  wish  to  encumber  my  matter  unnecessarily,  I  shall  only  say,  I 
am  ready  to  meet  any  attempt  of  this  description  when  it  shall  be  made. 

It  is  very  strange  also  to  find  that  Mr.  Gandolphy  who  wrote  in 
London,  and  published  his  book  in  that  city,  and  who  appealed,  as  it  is 
said,  to  Rome,  and  was,  as  it  is  said,  sustained  by  Rome,  was  forced  to 
be  silent.  Could  the  "venerable  body"  explain  what  this  sort  of  silence 
means?  Writing,  speaking,  printing,  publishing,  appealing,  obtaining 
the  approbation  of  the  supreme  tribunal  for  what  was  so  written,  said, 
printed  and  published,  means,  being  forced  into  silence!  !  Wonderful 
discovery !  !  !  White,  in  addition  to  his  other  good  qualities,  has  proved 
himself  to  be  the  very  pink  of  lexicographers.  I  must  close  this  letter. 
Yours,  and  so  forth,  b.  c. 

LETTER  XXV 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Feb.  26,  1827. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends, — I  now  come  to  the  topic  which  has,  during  centuries, 
afforded  a  most  prolific  source  of  calumny,  and  an  abundant  theme  of 
declamation  to  our  opponents.  I  shall  enter  upon  it  at  some  length ;  you 
will  therefore  have  need  of  patience,  and  my  excuse  must  be  found  in  the 
importance  of  the  subject  and  the  injustice  of  our  assailants. 

White  continues  in  the  following  strain : 


406  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


"If  3'our  leaders,  whom  it  would  be  uncharitable  to  suspect  of  the 
latter  feeling,  have  so  far  receded  from  the  Roman  creed  as  to  allow  us 
the  common  privileges  of  Christianity,  and  can  conscientiously  swear  to 
protect  and  encourage  the  interests  of  the  Church  of  England,  let  them, 
in  the  name  of  truth,  speak  openly  before  the  world,  and  be  the  first  to 
remove  that  obstacle  to  mutual  benevolence,  and  perfect  community  of 
political  privileges — the  doctrine  of  exclusive  salvation  in  your  Church. 
Cancel  but  that  one  article  from  your  creed,  and  all  liberal  men  in 
Europe  will  offer  you  the  right-hand  of  fellowship.  Your  other  doc- 
trines concern  but  yourselves ;  this  endangers  the  peace  and  freedom  of 
every  man  living,  and  that  in  proportion  to  your  goodness ;  it  makes  your 
very  benevolence  a  curse. ' ' 

The  doctrine  of  exclusive  salvation  is  the  vision  which  appals  the 
lisping  infant  in  the  nursery,  is  given  as  the  schoolboy's  theme,  rounds 
the  period  of  joyous  graduates  at  commencement-day,  affords  scope 
for  the  amplification  of  the  spouter  at  the  sanctified  assembly  of  col- 
lectors of  cents,  rouses  the  ire  of  the  raving  enthusiast,  fills  the  eye  of 
deluded  piety,  and  is  as  solemnly  given  by  doting  age  as  it  is  flippantly 
stated  by  careless  infidelity  to  be  the  attribute  of  Popery,  the  char- 
acteristic of  our  Church,  the  mark  of  Antichrist.  What  in  the  name  of 
wonder  is  the  meaning  of  this  cabalistic  phrase;  this  so  frequently  re-. 
peated,  and  so  little  understood,  expression?  The  phrase,  taken  in  its 
obvious  meaning,  is,  that  salvation  is  to  be  had  only  in  some  special  way, 
that  is  by  that  mode  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others.  In  this  general  prin- 
ciple every  human  being  agrees,  that  there  is  some  one  way  which  man 
must  follow  to  be  saved.  When  I  say  every  human  being,  I  mean  every 
one  who  believes  in  a  state  of  salvation  and  in  a  state  of  damnation; 
even  the  Universalist,  who  says  that  all  will  ultimately  be  saved,  is  in- 
cluded, for  he  believes  that  there  is  at  least  a  purgatory,  though  not  a 
hell :  and  this  purgatory  is  so  far  a  state  of  damnation. 

There  is  not  a  human  being  then  who  does  not  hold  the  doctrine  of 
exclusive  salvation:  the  difference  of  their  belief  consists  only  in  the 
different  extent  and  description  of  the  exclusion.  The  Deist  excludes 
the  murderer  and  the  robber:  the  Mahometan  excludes  the  infidel:  the 
Christian  requires  the  belief  of  the  doctrines  of  Jesus  Christ  and  a 
conformity  to  his  law  on  the  part  of  all  those  to  whom  that 
law  is  promulgated;  the  Presbyterian,  who  believes  in  the  Trinity, 
excludes  the  Socinian  and  the  Unitarian;  the  Episcopalian  ex- 
cludes those  who  have  not  apostolical  ministry,  or  who  wilfully  or 
carelessly  follow  corrupt  doctrine.  Thus,  in  a  word,  there  is  no  re- 
ligious division  which  does  not  exclude  many  persons  from  salvation. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  407 

If,  therefore,  the  doctrine  of  exclusive  salvation  be  "an  obstacle  to  per- 
fect community  of  political  privileges,"  every  sect  which  in  any  way 
acquired  political  privileges  must  suppose  itself  justified  in  not  admitting 
others  to  any  participation  therein.  Is  this  the  political  doctrine  of 
Bishop  Kemp  and  the  "venerable  body?"  And  yet  how  White  and 
they  inveigh  against  Spain  and  South  America!  The  doctrine  of  ex- 
clusive salvation,  then,  means  the  belief  that  only  some  persons  will  be 
saved.  Would  White  have  us  believe  that  all  persons  will  be  saved? 
Yet  he  would  call  himself  a  Christian,  and  a  member  of  the  Church  of 
England;  of  that  Church  whose  18th  article  is  in  the  following  words: 

"They  also  are  to  be  had  accursed,  that  presume  to  say,  that  every 
man  shall  be  saved  by  the  law  or  sect  which  he  professeth,  so  that  he  be 
diligent  to  frame  his  life  according  to  that  law,  and  the  light  of  nature. 
For  Holy  Scripture  doth  set  out  unto  us  only  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ, 
whereby  men  must  be  saved." 

In  1814,  White  tells  us,  page  32,  Evidence,  that  he  subscribed  this 
article:  thus  he  subscribed  the  doctrine  of  exclusive  salvation.  Bishop 
Kemp,  subscribed,  this  same  doctrine,  for  he  subscribed  the  same  article. 

In  the  Preshyterian  Confession  of  Faith  for  the  Church  in  the 
United  States,  published  in  1821,  chapter  x.  Of  effectual  calling,  section 
iv,  it  is  stated  as  follows : 

"Others  not  elected,  although  they  may  be  called  by  the  ministry 
of  the  word,  and  may  have  some  common  operations  of  the  spirit,  yet 
they  never  truly  come  to  Christ,  and  therefore  cannot  be  saved:  much 
less  can  men,  not  possessing  the  Christian  religion,  be  saved  in  any  other 
way  whatsoever,  be  they  sever  so  diligent  to  frame  their  lives  ac- 
cording to  the  law  of  nature,  and  the  law  of  that  religion  they  do  pro- 
fess; and  to  assert  and  maintain  that  they  may,  is  very  pernicious  and 
to  be  detested." 

This  Confession  of  Faith  is  adopted  by  some  of  the  venerable  body 
which  has  charged  the  holding  of  the  doctrine  of  exclusive  salvation 
to  be  making  our  very  benevolence  a  curse,  and  makes  us  dangerous 
to  the  peace  and  freedom  of  every  man  living.  The  same  doctrine  is 
found  word  for  word  in  the  corresponding  chapter  and  section  of  the 
Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Associate  and  Reformed  Church,  following 
the  Church  of  Scotland,  in  the  United  States  of  America,  as  published 
in  1813.  This  denomination  is,  I  believe,  generally  known  by  the  ap- 
pellation of  "Covenanters."  I  add  here,  the  questions  and  answers 
upon  the  subject  from  the  larger  catechism,  which  are  in  the  Presby- 
terian and  Covenanting  Churches  word  for  word  the  same,  page  194, 
Presbyterian. 


408  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

"Q.  59.     Who  are  made  partakers  of  redemption  through  Christ? 

"A.  Redemption  is  certainly  applied,  and  effectually  communi- 
cated, to  all  those  for  whom  Christ  hath  purchased  it;  who  are  in  time 
by  the  Holy  Ghost  enabled  to  believe  in  Christ :  according  to  the  Gospel. 

"Q.  60.  Can  they  who  have  never  heard  the  Gospel,  and  so  know 
not  Jesus  Christ,  nor  believe  in  him,  be  saved  by  their  living  according 
to  the  light  of  nature? 

"A.  They  who  having  never  heard  the  Gospel,  know  not  Jesus 
Christ,  and  believe  not  in  him,  cannot  be  saved,  be  they  never  so  dili- 
gent to  frame  their  lives  according  to  the  light  of  nature,  or  the  laws 
of  that  religion  which  they  profess;  neither  is  there  salvation  in  any 
other,  but  in  Christ  alone,  who  is  the  Saviour  only  of  his  body,  the 
Church. 

"Q.  61.  Are  all  they  saved  who  hear  the  Gospel,  and  live  in  the 
Church? 

"A.  All  that  hear  the  Gospel,  and  live  in  the  visible  Church,  are 
not  saved ;  but  only  they  who  are  true  members  of  the  Church  invisible. 

''Q.  62.     What  is  the  visible  Church? 

"A.  The  visible  Church  is  a  society  made  up  of  all  such  as  in  all 
ages  and  places  of  the  world  do  profess  the  true  religion,  and  of  their 
children. 

' '  Q.  68.     Are  the  elect  only  effectually  called  ? 

"A.  All  the  elect,  and  they  only,  are  effectually  called;  although 
others  may  be  and  often  are  outwardly  called  by  the  ministry  of  the 
word,  and  have  some  common  operations  of  the  Spirit;  who,  for  their 
wilful  neglect  and  contempt  of  the  grace  offered  to  them,  being  justly 
left  in  their  unbelief,  do  never  truly  come  to  Jesus  Christ. ' ' 

Surely  the  gentlemen  who  teach  this  catechism  will  not  deny  that 
they  teach  a  doctrine  of  exclusive  salvation. 

The  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  of  the 
United  States  of  America,  published  in  New  York  in  1815,  has  the  xxviii 
article  of  its  doctrine  in  the  following  words : 

"That  every  one  is  bound  to  join  himself  to  the  true  Church." 

"We  believe,  since  this  holy  congregation  is  an  assembly  of  those 
who  are  saved,  and  that  out  of  it  there  is  no  salvation,  that  no  person, 
of  whatsoever  state  or  condition  he  may  be,  ought  to  withdraw  himself, 
to  live  in  a  separate  state  from  it;  but  that  all  men  are  in  duty  bound 
to  join  and  unite  themselves  with  it,  maintaining  the  unity  of  the 
Church;  submitting  themselves  to  the  doctrine  and  discipline  thereof; 
bowing  their  necks  under  the  yoke  of  Jesus  Christ ;  and  as  mutual  mem- 
bers of  the  same  body,  serving  to  the  edification  of  the  brethren,  ac- 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO   WHITE  409 

cording  to  the  talents  God  has  given  them.  And  that  this  may  be  the 
more  effectually  observed,  it  is  the  duty  of  all  believers,  according  to 
the  word  of  God,  to  separate  themselves  from  all  those  who  do  not  be- 
long to  the  Church,  and  to  join  themselves  to  this  congregation,  where- 
soever God  hath  established  it,  even  though  the  magistrates  and  the 
edicts  of  princes  were  against  it;  yea,  though  they  should  suffer  death 
or  any  other  corporeal  punishment.  Therefore  all  those,  who  separate 
themselves  from  the  same,  or  do  not  join  themselves  to  it,  act  contrary 
to  the  ordinance  of  God." 

The  doctrine  of  exclusive  salvation  is  not  only  taught  by  those 
whose  Confessions  and  Catechisms  I  have  here  cited,  but  by  all  others, 
as  I  have  before  asserted,  and  shall  hereafter  more  fully  show,  but  1 
have  here  quoted  only  a  few  as  samples  of  all. 

I  have  now  arrived  at  this  point,  that  the  general  principle  of  the 
doctrine  is  not  peculiar  to  our  Church,  but  is  common  to  every  species 
of  religious  association :  that  the  only  difference  between  them  consists 
on  this  head,  of  where  the  line  is  to  be  drawn  within  which,  they  who 
are  in  the  way  of  salvation  are  to  be  found,  and  without  which,  they 
who  are  criminal  and  in  a  state  of  danger  are  left. 

Before,  however,  I  proceed  to  make  that  farther  inquiry  as  to 
whether  the  Church  to  which  we  belong,  or  its  opponents,  act  more 
reasonably  and  charitably  in  drawing  this  line,  I  shall  make  a  previous 
inquiry,  in  order  to  rectify  vague  impressions,  which  are  but  too  com- 
mon, and  whose  vagueness  and  indistinctness  make  the  doctrine  appear 
what  it  really  is  not. 

Suppose  for  instance  I  were  to  ask  Bishop  Kemp  whether  he  has 
the  power  of  condemning  any  person  to  hell;  he  would  very  properly 
and  very  naturally  feel  astonished  at  my  gross  ignorance,  or  unblush- 
ing effrontery,  and  he  would  in  all  Christian  humility  assure  me  that 
he  had  not.  Let  me  ask  the  question  of  any  one  of  his  associates;  I 
know,  very  naturally,  that  I  shall  be  told  in  the  same  manner  that  he 
disclaims  having  any  such  power;  that  to  pretend  to  its  possession  or 
exercise  would,  in  him,  be  arrogance  and  blasphemy.  But  I  tell  them, 
that  they  have  one  and  all,  excluded  from  heaven  and  condemned  to  hell 
a  large  portion  of  the  human  race:  for  they  have  decided  upon  their 
damnation  in  those  articles  to  which  they  have  subscribed.  The  an- 
swer of  the  venerable  body,  will  be  very  simple,  and  I  believe  very  suf- 
ficient. It  will  be  that  in  stating  a  plain  fact,  they  only  testify  what 
they  know,  but  the  regulation  lay  not  with  them:  they  will  tell  me, 
that  God,  and  he  only,  made  the  regulation,  and  that  they  only  do  as 


410  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


St.  Paul  did  when  he  wrote,  ^^  "Be  not  deceived,  neither  fornicators,  nor 
idolators,  nor  adulterers,  nor  effeminate,  nor  abusers  of  themselves  with 
mankind,  nor  thieves,  nor  covetous,  nor  drunkards,  nor  revilers,  nor  ex- 
tortioners, shall  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God : ' '  they  merely  testify  what 
God  has  regulated,  not  what  they  are  disposed  to  do,  or  have  the  power 
of  doing.  They  will  still  farther  tell  me  that  they  consider  it  to  be  an 
evidence  of  kindness  towards  an  unfortunate  sinner  to  give  him  this  in- 
formation ;  that  the  declaration  is  made  by  the  Apostle  to  remove  a  de- 
lusion; to  save  the  sinner  from  destruction,  not  to  send  him  to  per- 
dition. They  will  add  that  the  Apostle  wrote  also  i^^  "Without  faith  it  is 
impossible  to  please  him,"  (God)  ;  and  that  our  Saviour  said,  ^^  "He  that 
believeth  and  is  baptised  shall  be  saved ;  but  he  that  believeth  not  shaU 
be  damned, ' '  and  therefore  it  is  charity  and  kindness  on  their  part  and 
not  any  bad  disposition  towards  the  unfortunate  fellow-beings  whom 
they  desire  to  save,  [which]  urges  them  to  testify  that  those  things  are 
necessary  to  salvation.  White  himself,  they  would  swear,  agrees  with 
them  in  stating-,  page  72,  that  approbation  of  error  in  doctrine  would 
argue  "a  shocking  indifference  to  the  eternal  welfare  of  man."  Such, 
I  am  convinced,  would  be  their  answer  substantially,  if  not  in  words. 
The  conclusions  which  they  would  have  us  draw  from  it  are,  "That 
to  declare  plainly  what  we  believe  is  required  by  God  for  salvation,  is 
not  to  dictate  to  God  upon  what  terms  he  must  save  man."  "That  our 
plain  declaration  of  what  we  believe  to  be  against  God's  law,  is  not  on 
our  part  to  doom  to  hell,  the  guilty  person."  "That  our  simple  decla- 
ration of  what  we  believe  to  be  necessary  for  salvation,  accompanied 
with  an  admonition  to  those  who  refuse  conformity,  of  the  danger  of 
their  destruction;  is  not  a  v/ant  of  charity  for  them:  in  several  in- 
stances, would  be  the  best  evidence  of  our  affection  for  themselves,  and 
of  our  zeal  for  their  welfare." 

I  am,  for  own  part,  fully  satisfied  with  the  correctness  of  this 
reasoning:  1  give  the  full  benefit  of  it  to  the  venerable  body,  upon  the 
condition  that  they  do  in  like  manner  to  me;  and  we  shall  then  have 
arrived  at  this  conclusion :  The  doctrine  of  exclusive  salvation  is  no  evi- 
dence of  uncharitableness  in  those  who  hold  it.  It  might  create  party 
spirit,  but  not  as  its  necessary  consequence. 

Having  cleared  up  so  much  of  our  way,  I  now^  complain  of  that 
gross  and  palpable  injustice  which  makes  criminal  in  the  Catholic  what 
is  not  rebuked  in  his  opponents;  which  perpetually  accuses  us  of  il- 


"I  Cor.  vi.  9. — King  James's  Version. 
"  Heb.  xi,  6. 
''Mark  xvi,  16. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO   WHITE  411 


liberality  for  what  is  never  charged  as  illiberal  against  our  assailants: 
I  complain  that  too  many  persons  talk  of  uncharitable  doctrines  where 
they  do  not  exist :  and  exhibit  us  as  exclusively  uncharitable  in  holding 
a  tenet  which  is  not  peculiar  to  ourselves,  but  which  is  held  in  com- 
mon by  every  religious  society :  because  in  truth  all  hold  the  doctrine  of 
exclusive  salvation,  but  the  point  of  dispute  is,  where  shall  the  line  be 
drawn. 

I  shall  state  where  we  draw  it,  let  others  draw  for  themselves.  The 
first  principle  of  a  Roman  Catholic  is :  man  is  bound  to  believe  all  that 
God  teaches,  and  to  do  all  that  God  commands:  whosoever  refuses  to 
believe  what  God  proposes  or  to  obey  what  he  commands,  is  not  in 
God's  Church;  and  out  of  his  Church  there  is  no  salvation.  A  question 
next  presents  itself,  as  to  how  the  fact  of  what  God  teaches  and  com- 
mands can  be  ascertained  by  man,  and  upon  this  a  Roman  Catholic  be- 
lieves, that  when  God  made  the  revelation  of  his  truths  and  of  his  pre- 
cepts, he  entrusted  their  preservation  to  a  society  for  which  he  estab- 
lished a  special  constitution  and  government;  and  that  this  society  was 
by  his  ordinance  to  continue  at  all  times  the  witness  of  the  facts,  and 
that  this  divinely  commissioned  witness  was  his  Church;  whether  we 
view  it  in  the  patriarchal  aggregation  before  the  days  of  Moses ;  in  the 
Aaronitic  and  Levitical  body  and  their  adherents  to  the  coming  of 
Christ ;  or  in  the  Apostles  and  their  successors  and  adherents,  thence,  to 
the  end  of  the  world.  The  Roman  Catholic  believes  that  the  testimony 
of  this  body  is  the  evidence  of  the  truth  of  doctrine,  and  of  precept,  and 
of  divine  institution  to  those  to  whom  that  testimony  is  given ;  and  that 
the  unbounded  mercy  of  God  may  provide  extraordinary  help  for  those 
who  have  never  received  this  testimony  or  who  have  never  clearly  seen 
its  foundation  of  certainty  based  upon  the  truth  and  power,  and  com- 
mission of  God  himself.  Thus  all  they  who  profess  their  belief  of  what 
God  has  taught  by  the  testimony  of  the  Church  are  in  its  invisible  so- 
ciety :  but  several  comprised  in  this  society  will  be  excluded  from  salva- 
tion, because  of  their  violation  of  the  precepts;  and  probably  several 
who  do  not  now  appear  in  that  society,  may  by  the  extraordinary  grace 
and  favor  of  our  merciful  God  be  brought  within  its  bosom  by  belief, 
and  practice,  and  profession :  and  though  this  external  profession  should 
never  be  made,  we  cannot  pass  our  judgment  upon  individuals  of  whose 
opportunities  and  dispositions  God  alone  can  judge.  We  therefore  say 
that  all  who  are  separated  from  the  Church  are  in  error :  but  we  cannot 
say  that  all  who  are  now  in  error  will  be  excluded  from  heaven :  neither 
can  we  say  that  all  who  die  under  delusion  are  criminal :  because  there 
can  be  no  criminality  without  either  neglect  of  the  opportunities  which 


412  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

existed,  for  the  discovery  of  truth,  or  the  obstinate  rejection  of  dis- 
covered truth,  or  the  base  shame  of  professing  what  one  knows  to  be 
truth:  and  we  may  charitably  hope  that  those  exceptions  will  cover  a 
multitude.  Thus  our  doctrine  of  exclusive  salvation  unites  truth  and 
charity  together.  ^^ 

I  shall  pursue  this  subject  in  my  next. 

Yours,  and  so  forth,  b.  c. 

LETTER  XXVI 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Nov.  5,  1827. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends, — It  has  too  long  and  too  generally  been  the  impression 
in  these  States,  that  the  doctrine  of  exclusive  salvation  is  peculiar  to 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church;  you  now  perceive  that  such  is  not  the 
fact;  you  are  aware  of  its  being  the  doctrine  of  every  religious  society. 
Having  ascertained  this  point,  I  now  proceed  to  make  an  historical  in- 
quiry, of  great  importance  to  the  cause  of  Christianity,  and  to  the  vin- 
dication of  our  own  character.  The  general  impression  is  also  in  America, 
that  it  was  our  Church  which,  with  a  ruthless  and  tyrannical  spirit, 
created  that  separation  of  Christians  which  here  so  lamentably  exists: 
that  it  was  we  who  banished  from  our  society,  and  denounced  damnation 
against  the  Protestants  for  their  merely  being  obedient  to  the  dictates 
of  conscience ; — are  these  facts  ? — Let  us  examine. 

Of  one  fact  there  can  be  no  doubt,  viz.  that  in  Europe  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  fifteenth  century,  Christians  were  in  a  religious 
unity;  we  will,  if  our  opponents  require  it,  admit,  for  argument  sake, 
that  this  was  a  unity  of  error.  But  if  this  error  were  not  calculated  to 
destroy  man's  hope  of  salvation,  there  could  be  no  excuse  for  departing 
therefrom:  whoever  went  out  could  justify  that  procedure  only  upon 
the  ground  of  the  error  into  which  that  united  body  had  fallen,  being 

"  The  vigorous  Bishop  here,  leans  towards  the  milder  interpretation  of  the  doc- 
trine that  * '  Outside  the  Church  there  is  no  salvation. ' '  It  would  make  interesting 
reading:  to  place  in  parallel  lines  this  opinion  of  Bishop  England  and  the  uncom- 
promising interpretation  given  the  same  doctrine  by  the  no  less  vigorous  and  equally 
kind  Bishop  Hay,  author  of  The  Sincere  Christian.  Bishop  England,  by  no  means, 
intends  to  console  Protestants  with  the  thought  that  the  sects  to  which  they  may 
belong  are  the  way  to  salvation  —  Nor  does  he  wish  to  convey  the  idea  that  the 
attainment  of  salvation  is  as  easy  for  the  Protestant  as  it  is  for  the  Catholic.  There 
is  absolutely  no  hope  for  the  Protestant  unless  he  be  in  entire  ' '  good  faith ' '  and 
faithfully  fulfil  his  duties  to  God  and  man  according  to  the  knowledge  which  he  i3 
possessed.  No  man  can  enter  heaven  unless  he  be  in  sanctifying  grace.  Considering 
the  pronenesss  of  human  mating  to  mortal  sin  and  the  almost  insuperable  difficulty 
of  obtaining  pardon  save  through  the  medium  of  the  Sacrament  of  Penance,  the  hope 
of  Salvation  for  Protestants  is  reduced  to  the  minimum. — Ed. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO   WHITE  413 

so  grievous,  as  that  a  communion  therein  would  exclude  the  participator 
from  salvation.  And  in  fact,  the  persons  who  led  off  the  separatists 
gave  this  as  the  reason  for  their  secession ;  they  called  upon  all  others  to 
follow  them,  as  they  loved  their  souls  and  desired  to  avoid  damnation. 
In  the  words  of  a  very  uncharitable  and  libellous  Protestant  Catechism 
printed  in  1824,  by  J.  Crissy,  and  G.  Goodman,  in  Philadelphia;  and 
published  by  The  Society  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  for  the 
advancement  of  Christianity  in  Pennsylvania,  for  The  Episcopal  Fe- 
male Tract  Society  of  Philadelphia,  we  find  what  they  have  stated : 
after  the  assertion  of  several  calumnies  it  asks, 

Q.  Can  you  name  any  other  errors  and  corruptions  of  the  Church 
of  Rome? 

A.  Several  others  might  be  named;  but  those  already  mentioned 
are  abundantly  sufficient  to  show  that  the  Church  of  Rome  hath,  in  a 
great  measure,  changed  the  pure  and  holy  religion  of  Christ,  into  a 
most  wretched  and  dangerous  superstition. 

Q.  What  do  you  think  of  those  who  live  in  the  communion  of  so 
corrupt  a  Church? 

A.     That  they  are  under  a  most  grievous  bondage;  and  therefore 

I  heartily  pity  them  and  pray  for  their  conversion. 

Q.  What  do  you  think  of  those  who  separate  themselves  from  the 
Church  of  Rome  ?    May  they  do  it  lawfully  ? 

A.  They  not  only  may,  but  are  indispensably  bound  by  God's 
command  to  renounce  all  such  idolatrous  and  sinful  practices,  and  may 
rest  assured  of  his  favor  in  so  doing.  ''Come  out  from  among  them, 
and  be  ye  separate,  and  touch  not  the  unclean  thing ;  and  I  will  receive 
you,  and  ye  shall  be  my  sons  and  daughters,  saith  the  Lord  Almighty." 

II  Cor.  vi,  17. 

As  one  of  the  objects  of  their  pity,  I  feel  under  such  obligations  to 
the  good  ladies  of  this  society  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  that  if  God 
spares  my  life,  I  shall  pay  them  no  slight  or  evanescent  attention.  Mean- 
time I  shall  feel  obliged  to  any  friend  who  will  forward  to  B.  C.  through 
the  office  of  the  Miscellany,  the  list  of  the  officers  and  members  of  this 
society  in  the  year  1823,  and  thence  to  the  present  period ;  and  I  hereby 
tender  my  thanks  to  the  person  who  forwarded  this  pretty  tract  to  the 
Bishop,  from  whom  I  have  received  it;  I  had  not  previously  seen  a 
copy.  My  statement  then  is,  that  if  there  be  want  of  charity  in  calling 
persons  by  provoking  names  for  holding  alleged  doctrinal  errors;  that 
want  of  charity  did  not  originate  with  Roman  Catholics;  if  there  be 
criminality  in  asserting  that  persons  cannot  be  saved  by  following  their 
fathers  in  the  profession  which  they  had  made  of  the  Christian  faith, 


414  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


that  criminality  is  not  of  Catholic  origin ;  if  separation  because  of  doc- 
trinal error  is  a  curse  to  the  world,  that  curse  was  not  inflicted  by 
Catholics.  I  shall  proceed  to  show  that  we  have  been  sinned  against, 
and  that  the  transgressors  have  imputed  to  us  their  own  acts.  I  repeat 
my  former  assertion:  and  I  shall  fully  prove  its  truth.  We  did  not 
separate  from  the  Protestants.  Their  fathers  and  our  fathers  were  in 
the  same  Church,  and  their  fathers  left  ours,  alleging  that  they  could 
not  be  saved  if  they  remained  in  the  communion  from  which  they  de- 
parted. AVith  them  originated  the  charge  against  our  predecessors:  let 
them  retract  the  charge  and  renew  the  union :  let  them  bring  back  things 
to  that  state  in  which  they  were  at  the  time  of  this  unf orunate  division : 
let  them  come  in  amongst  us  and  we  shall  do  every  thing  in  our  power 
to  gratify,  and  to  conciliate  them:  but  we  cannot  charge  our  commoQ 
ancestors  with  having  destroyed  the  purity  of  Christ's  religion,  for  we 
do  not  believe  they  did.  How  then,  shall  we  be  re-united,  unless  they 
come  to  us,  or  we  follow  them?  We  state  that  we  have  kept  the  doc- 
trine unchanged — if  such  be  the  fact,  and  they  do  not  object  to  our 
present  doctrines,  their  fathers  made  a  sad  mistake,  which  it  is  the 
duty  of  our  friends  to  correct:  if  our  present  doctrines  are  such  as 
they  do  not  object  to,  we  ask  them  only  to  embrace  those  doctrines 
which  we  now  hold,  but  if  they  tell  us  that  these  are  damnable  and 
idolatrous,  are  they  not  now  repeating  the  assertion  of  the  first  separatists 
that  there  is  no  salvation  in  our  Church,  and  that  they  cannot  come 
back ;  that  the  union  would  destroy  truth  which  God  commanded  them 
to  preserve.  Thus  we  only  stand  upon  that  ground  of  doctrine  upon 
which  their  fathers  and  ours,  have  during  centuries,  stood  together :  their 
fathers  left  us  and  made  new  Churches,  alleging,  that  they  would  be 
criminal  if  they  did  not :  we  perpetually  invite  their  re-union,  and  they 
answer  by  telling  us,  that  all  who  desire  salvation  ought  to  leave  us, 
for  that  we  have  corrupted  the  purity  of  God's  religion;  we  state  that 
our  consciences  testify  to  us  that  we  have  not,  and  that  the  evidence  of 
history  proves  that  we  have  only  followed  the  Apostles,  and  made  no 
doctrinal  changes;  we  invite  them  to  follow  what  this  evidence  makes 
plain,  and  to  be  re-united.  We  are  again  told  that  we  are  superstitious 
and  idolatrous,  and  that  their  value  for  the  salvation  of  their  souls  pre- 
vents their  uniting  in  our  idolatry,  and  they  have  the  modesty  to  state 
that  we  shock  the  pious  and  destroy  charity  by  our  doctrine  of  ex- 
clusive salvation.  "Cancel  but  that  one  article  from  your  creed,  and 
all  liberal  men  in  Europe  will  offer  you  the  right-hand  of  fellowship." 
Is  not  this  worse  than  ludicrous?  But  the  next  assertion  is,  more  ab- 
surd if  possible.    "Your  other  doctrines  concern  but  yourselves."    Why, 


two  CALUMNIES  OF  J.  BLANCO  WHITE  415 


was  it  not  upon  the  very  score  of  those  other  doctrines  the  separation 
was  made?  is  it  not  upon  their  score  the  separation  is  continued?  If 
you,  good  gentlemen  of  the  "venerable  body,"  will  unite  with  us  in 
professing  the  other  doctrines,  we  shall  cancel  this  as  far  as  it  regards, 
you.  No !  you  cannot,  you  say,  adopt  our  doctrines.  Why  then  exliibit 
such  an  absurdity  as  the  assertion  that  those  doctrines  concerned  only 
ourselves?  I  have  frequently  had  to  wade  through  nonsense  and  self- 
contradiction,  but  never  have  I  felt  it  so  thick  and  muddy  as  in  this 
book,  so  lauded,  by  so  venerable  a  body! 

This  topic  must  not  be  too  hastily  passed  over ;  I  shall  take  two  or 
three  of  the  divisions  of  our  opposed  phalanx,  and  test  the  assertion  by 
facts.  I  shall  with  all  due  deference  begin  with  him  who  has  been  put 
forward  as  the  leader  in  our  denunciation.  Bishop  Kemp,  and  shall  pay 
my  respects  to  his  Church. 

In  examining  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  the  United  States 
of  America,  I  shall  use  only  her  own  standard  book,  and  the  thirty -nine 
articles  as  she  has  curtailed  them :  so  that,  I  shall  not  be  accused  of  do- 
ing as  they  have  done  who  published  White's  Evidence.  I  shall  treat 
them  with  all  fairness  and  honor. 

In  article  xviii,  as  was  seen  in  our  last,  she  teaches  that  they  are  to 
be  accursed,  that  presume  to  say  that  men  may  be  saved  in  any  law  or 
sect,  for  there  is  only  the  name  of  Christ  whereby  man  must  be  saved.  I 
take  the  meaning  of  this  to  be,  that  all  who  do  not  hold  the  right  and 
true  Christian  faith,  are  excluded  from  salvation. 

The  xxxvth  article  is  in  the  following  words :  — 

Art.  XXXV.  Of  Homilies. 

"The  Second  Booh  of  Homilies,  the  several  titles  whereof  we  have 
joined,  under  this  Article,  doth  contain  a  godly  and  wholesome  Doctrine, 
and  necessary  for  these  times,  as  doth  the  former  Book  of  Homilies, 
which  were  set  forth  in  the  time  of  Edward  the  Sixth ;  and  therefore  we 
judge  them  to  be  read  in  Churches  by  the  Ministers  diligently  and  dis- 
tinctly, that  they  may  be  imderstanded  of  the  people. 
Of  the  Names  of  the  Homilies. 

1.  Of  the  right  Use  of  the  Church. 

2.  Against  Peril  of  Idolatry. 

3.  Of  Repairing  and  Keeping  Clean  of  Churches. 

4.  Of  good  works ;  first  of  Fasting. 

5.  Against  Gluttony  and  Drunkenness. 

6.  Against  Excess  of  Apparel. 

7.  Of  Prayer. , 


416  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


8.  Of  the  Place  and  Time  of  Prayer. 

9.  That  Common  Prayer  and  Sacraments  ought  to  be  ministered 
in  a  known  Tongue. 

10.  Of  the  Reverent  Estimation  of  God's  Word. 

11.  Of  Alms-doing. 

12.  Of  the  Nativity  of  Christ. 

13.  Of  the  Passion  of  Christ. 

14.  Of  the  Resurrection  of  Christ. 

15.  Of  the  unworthy  receiving  of  the  Sacrament  of  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ. 

16.  Of  the  Gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

17.  For  the  Rogation-days. 

18.  Of  the  State  of  Matrimony. 

19.  Of  Repentance. 

20.  Against  Idleness. 

21.  Against  Rebellion." 

The  exception  taken  by  the  American  Church  is  in  the  following 
words : 

This  Article  is  received  in  this  Church,  so  far  as  it  declares  the 
Book  of  Homilies  to  be  an  explication  of  Christian  doctrine,  and  in- 
structive in  piety  and  morals.  But  all  references  to  the  constitution 
and  laws  of  England  are  considered  as  inapplicable  to  the  circumstances 
of  this  Church,  which  also  suspends  the  order  for  the  reading  of  said 
Homilies  in  Churches,  until  a  revision  of  them  may  be  conveniently 
made,  for  the  clearing  of  them,  as  well  from  obsolete  words  and  phrases, 
as  from  local  references. 

This  exception  is  an  adoption  of  the  doctrine  contained  in  the 
Homilies — whatever  therefore  has  no  local  reference,  or  is  not  based 
upon  the  British  constitution,  or  British  law,  in  the  Homilies,  is  adopted 
as  a  good  explanation  of  the  doctrine  of  the  American  Church. 

Those  Homilies  are  stated  in  the  article  to  be  comprised  in  two 
books ;  the  first  was  set  forth  m  the  time  of  Edward  VI,  the  second  in 
the  time  of  Elizabeth.  They  are  both  stated  "to  contain  godly  and 
w^holesome  doctrine,"  "and  necessary  for  the  time,"  viz.  a  time  of 
transition  from  the  Catholic  to  the  Protestant  doctrine. 

My  quotations  are  taken  from  the  edition  by  Swords,  160  Pearl 
street,  New  York,  1815.  In  the  third  part  of  the  Sermon  on  Salvation, 
page  25,  is  the  following  passage: 

"For  the  right  and  true  Christian  faith  is  not  only  to  believe  holy 
Scripture,  and  all  the  foresaid  articles  of  our  faith,  are  true;  but  also 
to  have  a  sure  trust  and  confidence  in  God's  promises,  to  be  saved  from 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  417 


everlasting  damnation  by  Christ:  whereof  doth  follow  a  loving  heart  to 
obey  his  commandments." 

I  shall  now  state  what  I  take  to  be  the  constituent  parts  of  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Faith.  (1).  A  belief  of  the  doctrines  contained  in 
the  Scriptures;  the  Nicene  and  Apostles'  Creed  are  but  partial  specifica- 
tions under  this  general  head;  I  assume  that  the  belief  of  the  articles 
themselves  is  another  specification.  (2).  Confidence  in  the  promises  of 
salvation  through  the  merits  of  Christ.  (3).  And,  as  a  consequence  of 
this  belief  and  confidence,  the  love  of  God  manifested  in  the  observance 
of  his  commandments.  Thus,  what  they  call  faith  comprises,  our,  1, 
faith;  2,  hope;  3,  charity. 

Now  the  want  of  any  constituent  part  of  faith  destroys  its  exist- 
ence; hence,  erroneous  belief  being  a  want  of  belief  of  true  doctrine,  is 
destructive  of  faith,  and  consequently  excludes  from  salvation. 

I  shall  now  advert  to  a  very  few  of  our  doctrines,  which  the  English 
Church  and  the  American  Church  call  erroneous,  and  for  the  holding  of 
which,  we  are  upon  their  principles  excluded  from  salvation. 

I  shall  not  now  stop  to  examine  either  of  the  articles  x,  or  xi,  or  xii, 
but  I  shall  take  the  xiiith.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  always  held 
that  in  the  Scriptures  we  are  taught,  that  no  work  is  deserving  of  God's 
kingdom,  or  of  everlasting  salvation,  unless  it  be  done  by  the  special 
aid  or  grace  of  God,  given  for  that  purpose,  through  the  merits  of  Jesus 
Christ ;  but  she  also  taught,  that  many  good,  moral  acts  might  be  done  by 
persons  who  had  no  faith,  or  the  belief  of  the  true  doctrine,  which  acts, 
though  not  deserving  of  heaven,  were  yet  performed  in  virtue  of  God's 
special  aid ;  and  so  far  from  being  sinful,  were  frequently  rewarded  by 
God  with  temporal  blessings,  and  were  also,  as  it  were,  inducements  to 
him  to  bestow  more  ample  and  abundant  and  efficacious  graces  upon 
those  persons  who  corresponded  with  his  first  aid.  Those  moral,  good 
works  were  done  before  the  performer  had  faith,  or  was  justified;  but 
they  frequently  made  him  meet  for  sanctifying  grace,  and  by  a  sort  of 
congruity  or  fitness  deserved  from  the  mercy  of  heaven,  through  the 
merits  of  the  Redeemer,  what  could  not  be  claimed  upon  the  score  of 
justice. 

The  Protestants,  in  the  days  of  Edward  VI,  said  that  this  was  a 
blasphemous  error  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  stated  that  those  works 
done  without  faith  were  all  sins,  and  however  good  they  might  appear, 
yet  they  not  only  were  not  preparations  for  grace,  but  had  the  nature 
of  sin.  Thus,  a  man  M^ho  erred  concerning  a  doctrine,  or  who  wanted 
full  confidence  in  the  promises  of  salvation  through  Christ,  committed 
sin,  when  he  relieved  his  sick  or  destitute  brother  from  motives  of  mere 


418  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

humanity  or  compassion.  Yes,  I  repeat  the  statement.  The  Catholic 
said  it  was  an  act  of  human  virtue,  and  done  in  consequence  of  God's 
aid,  and  was  meet  to  receive  some  reward,  perhaps  grace,  from  God's 
mercy ;  but  the  Protestant  said  it  was  a  sin,  as  being  done  without  faith, 
and  deserved  therefore  no  reward,  and  that  it  was  a  blasphemy  to  be- 
lieve as  the  Catholic  Church  did;  and  that  whoever  desired  salvation 
should  separate  themselves  from  the  superstitions  and  blaspheming 
Catholics.  Let  me  not  be  condemned  until  my  proof  shall  have  been 
examined. 

The  thirteenth  article  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  is — 

"Works  done  before  the  grace  of  Christ,  and  the  inspiration  of  his 
spirit,  are  not  pleasant  to  God,  for  as  much  as  they  spring  not  of  faith 
in  Jesus  Christ,  neither  do  they  make  men  meet  to  receive  grace,  or  (as 
the  school  authors  say)  deserve  grace  of  congruity;  yea  rather,  for  that 
they  are  not  done  as  God  hath  willed  and  commanded  them  to  be  done, 
we  doubt  not  but  they  have  the  nature  of  sin." 

What  would  be  said  of  our  bigotry  and  infatuation  were  we  to  as- 
sert that  a  benevolent  Unitarian,  or  a  humane  Quaker,  neither  of  whom 
has  Protestant  faith,  had  no  merit  for  relieving  a  sick  family,  but  that 
we  doubted  not  but  this  act  of  his  had  in  it  the  nature  of  sin  ?  The  doc- 
trine of  our  predecessors  was,  as  ours  is,  that  the  act  would  be  meri- 
torious of  increase  of  eternal  life,  through  the  merits  of  Christ,  if  done 
under  the  influence  of  his  grace  by  a  justified  person;  but,  under  any 
circumstances,  when  done  even  through  mere  motives  of  natural  virtue, 
from  pure  benevolence  without  faith,  it  would  not  be  sinful,  but  would 
be  virtuous,  and  would  have  a  sort  of  claim  of  congruity  upon  the 
Author  of  good  to  bestow  some  favor  upon  the  benevolent  performers. 
This,  however,  is  one  of  our  Papistical  errors,  and  one  of  so  deep  a  dye 
of  criminality,  as  to  be  a  cause  for  leaving  our  communion !  As  I  be- 
lieve several  of  my  readers  may  yet  be  inclined  to  doubt  the  truth  of 
my  statement,  the  above  article  notwithstanding,  I  shall  go  more  fully 
into  the  case. 

In  the  second  paragraph  of  the  Homily  on  Salvation,  page  21,  after 
stating  a  variety  of  arguments,  of  the  value  of  which  I  now  take  no  no- 
tice, to  support  the  doctrine  of  the  article  xi,  that  we  are  justified  by 
faith  only,  and  upon  which  rests  chiefly  the  assertion  in  article  xiii,  that 
works  done  before  faith  have  the  nature  of  sin,  the  following  passage  is 
found:  "This  faith  the  Holy  Scripture  teacheth  us;  this  is  the  strong 
rock  and  foundation  of  the  Christian  religion ;  this  doctrine  all  old  and 
ancient  authors  of  Christ's  Church  do  approve;  this  doctrine  advanceth 
and  setteth  forth  the  true  glory  of  Christ,  and  beateth  down  the  vain 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  419 


glory  of  man ;  this  whoever  denieth  is  not  to  be  accounted  for  a  Christian 
man,  nor  for  a  setter  forth  of  Christ's  glory,  but  for  an  adversary  to 
Christ  and  his  Gospel,  and  for  a  setter  forth  of  man's  vain  glory,"  and 
so  forth. 

In  the  next  page,  the  compiler  of  the  homily  insinuates  a  gross 
falsehood,  viz.  that  Catholics  claimed  to  be  justified  by  their  works, 
when,  in  fact,  they  assert  that  man  is  justified  only  by  God,  but  they 
do  not  assert  that  useful  works  done  with  good  natural  motives  were 
sinful,  though  the  performer  of  those  works  were  an  infidel. 

They  always  held  that  the  works  of  natural  virtue  were  not  bad, 
though  not  sufficient  for  salvation ;  that  he  who  aided  by  God  performed 
such  works,  had  by  his  obedience  to  the  natural  law,  and  his  co-oper- 
ation with  the  aid  of  heaven,  a  claim  of  congruity  upon  the  further  aid 
of  a  merciful  God,  so  that  by  his  co-operation  with  the  first  grace,  or  aid 
and  preparation,  or  disposition,  he  became  meet  to  receive  from  a  mer- 
ciful God  a  second  grace,  by  means  whereof  God  might  justify  him  in 
his  sight. 

Now,  if  I  can  show  that  the  Protestant  Churches  stated  as  a  reason 
for  their  separation  from  the  Roman  Catholics,  that  our  Church  erred  in 
extending  the  possibility  of  salvation  to  a  greater  number  of  persons, 
and  a  more  diversified  description  of  persons  than  Protestanis  did,  I 
shall  have  shown  that  their  doctrine  of  exclusive  salvation  is  more  il- 
liberal than  is  ours. 

Having  taken  the  general  view  which  I  laid  before  you,  we  are 
better  prepared  to  enter  upon  the  examination  of  details.  And  first,  we 
have  seen  that  in  article  xviii  they  are  called  Accursed,  who  say  that 
a  man  may  he  saved  by  diligently  framing  his  life,  according  to  the 
principles  of  the  law  of  his  sect  and  the  light  of  nature,  for  he  cannot 
be  saved  unless  by  the  name  of  Christ.  In  article  xvii,  we  are  informed 
who  they  are  that  shall  be  saved,  viz.  the  predestined,  they  who  be  justi- 
fied freely,  who  are  "made  the  sons  of  God  by  adoption,"  who  "be  made 
like  to  the  image  of  his  only  begotten  Son  Jesus  Christ,"  who  "walk  re- 
ligiously in  good  works."  In  article  xiii,  we  are  told  that  works  which 
spring  not  of  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  are  not  good,  but  they  have  the  na- 
ture of  sin.  In  article  xii,  good  works  "do  spring  out  necessarily  of  a 
true  and  lively  faith."  In  article  xi,  "we  are  justified  by  faith 
only."  In  the  first  part  of  the  Sermon  on  Faith  {Homilies,  page 
29),  "without  faith  no  good  works  can  be  done,  which  shall  be 
acceptable  and  pleasant  to  God."  In  the  homily,  page  25,  we  are 
told  that  the  foundation  of  this  faith  is  the  belief  of  the  doctrines  of 
Christ.     "For  the  right  and  true  Christian  faith  is  not  only  to  believe 


420  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

that  Holy  Scripture  and  all  the  foresaid  articles  of  our  faith  are  true, 
but  also  to  have  a  sure  trust  and  confidence  in  God's  merciful  promises, 
to  be  saved  from  everlasting  damnation  by  Christ,  whereof  doth  follow 
a  loving  heart  to  obey  his  commandments."  Here  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  is,  at  least,  equally  exclusive  in  principle  as  is  ours.  I 
shall  now  point  out  an  essential  difference  in  favor  of  the  liberality  of 
our  tenets.  First,  we  do  not  exclude  from  the  chance  of  salvation  those 
persons  who,  not  having  heard  of  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  are  diligent 
to  frame  their  lives  according  to  that  law  which  they  have  received,  and 
to  the  light  of  nature :  though  we  may  run  the  risk  of  being  denounced 
by  Bishop  Kemp  as  Accursed  for  our  presumption ;  we  refer  him  for  our 
excuse  to  the  second  chapter  of  the  Epistle  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Romans. 
Secondly,  we  do  not  say  that  all  works  which  do  not  spring  from  faith 
have  the  nature  of  sin,  and  thus  we  do  not  say  that  the  acts  of  benevo- 
lence and  sincere  prayers  of  Unitarians  or  Deists  are  offensive  to  God, 
as  everything  must  be  which  has  the  nature  of  sin.  Thirdly,  we  do  not 
say  that  God  is  not  moved  by  those  works,  to  look  with  kindness  upon 
the  performers,  but  we  do  say  that,  although  these  works  were  not  the 
result  of  his  sanctifying  or  justifying  grace,  they  were  the  results  of  the 
co-operation  of  the  free  will  of  the  performer  with  the  sufficient  grace 
which  God  had  bestowed ;  and  that  this  co-operation  was  an  act  of  virtue 
which  makes  the  agent  meet  to  receive  grace,  and  inclines  God  to  be- 
stow it :  that  although  the  agent  has  no  claim  of  justice  upon  the  author 
of  grace,  by  reason  of  his  co-operation,  yet  by  reason  thereof,  and  the 
mercy  of  heaven,  there  is  a  congruity  of  fitness  for  more  grace.  White 
would  never  have  written  as  he  did,  if  he  were  even  a  tolerable  theologian ; 
perhaps  the  tenets  of  their  own  Churches,  as  exhibited  in  their  own 
doctrinal  books,  will  appear  strange  to  many  of  our  assailants.  The 
truth  is,  they  generally  speak  and  write  upon  subjects  of  which  they 
know  little,  and  are  therefore  inconsistent  with  themselves.  I  defy  them 
now  to  subvert  this  proposition :  ' '  The  doctrine  of  exclusive  salvation, 
as  taught  by  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  is  far  more  liberal  and  more 
charitable,  than  the  doctrine  of  exclusive  salvation  taught  by  the  Pro- 
testant Church  of  England,  or  by  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of 
the  United  States  of  America."  Should  this  be  questioned  by  any  per- 
son, I  shall  take  no  notice  of  rhapsody  or  of  rhetoric,  but  I  am  ready 
to  maintain  its  truth  by  documentary  evidence,  and  the  only  docu- 
ments which  I  will  use  or  admit,  are  the  doctrinal  decisions  or  formu- 
laries, and  authorized  interpretations  of  public  official  bodies,  or  officers 
of  both  Churches. 

I  shall  now  proceed  to  shew  that  one  of  the  reasons  for  separating 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  421 

from  our  Church  was  her  alleged  error  upon  the  above  and  other  heads 
of  doctrine.  In  the  second  part  of  the  Sermon  on  Good  Works,  (Homi- 
lies, page  41,)  the  professed  object  is  to  shew  what  works  spring  out  of 
true  faith  and  lead  men  to  everlasting  life,  and  it  is  answered  the  ob- 
servance of  God's  commandments.  The  sermon  then  continues  to  shew 
how  men  left  the  commandments,  and  devising  what  they  called  good 
works,  fell  into  idolatry.  God  sent  Moses  to  take  away  their  blindness ; 
but  the  Jews  "esteeming  their  own  fantasies  and  devotions  to  be  better 
than  the  institutions  of  God,"  invented  pilgrimages  and  precious  deck- 
ings of  images,  censing  them,"  and  so  forth.  "Priests  and  people  were 
corrupted  and  blindly  deceived  with  these  abominations,"  until  Josa- 
phat,  Josias,  and  Ezechias  and  others  destroyed  the  same  clearly,  and 
brought  the  people  from  such  their  feigned  inventions,  unto  the  very 
commandments  of  God."  When  Christ  came,  he  reproved  them  for  sub- 
stituting the  traditions  of  men  for  the  commandments  of  God.  In  the 
third  part  of  the  sermon,  page  45,  it  is  stated  that  the  same  dereliction 
of  the  commandments  of  God  for  "such  works  as  men  have  studied  out 
of  their  own  brain,"  has  displeased  God, — after  a  long  enumeration  of 
the  "false  doctrine,  superstition,  idolatry,  hypocrisy,  and  other  abuses," 
and  the  usual  subterfuge  of  conscious  calumny,  page  46,  "which  super- 
stition, although  (thanks  to  God)  it  had  been  little  used  in  this  realm, 
yet  in  divers  other  realms,  it  had  been  and  yet  is  used  among  many,  both 
learned  and  unlearned,"  the  following  expressions  are  found, — "Honor 
be  to  God,  who  did  put  light  in  the  heart  of  his  faithful  and  true  min- 
ister of  most  famous  memory,  King  Henry  VIII,  and  gave  him  the 
knowledge  of  his  word,  and  an  earnest  affection  to  seek  his  glory,  and 
to  put  away  all  such  superstitious  and  pharisaical  sects,  by  Anti-christ 
invented  and  set  up  against  the  word,  of  God,  and  glory  of  his  most 
blessed  name,  as  he  gave  a  like  spirit  unto  the  most  noble  and  famous 
princes,  Josaphat,  Josias,  and  Ezechias.  God  grant  all  us  the  King's 
Highness'  faithful  and  true  subjects,  to  feed  of  the  sweet  and  savoury 
b^read  of  God's  own  word  and  (as  Christ  commanded)  to  eschew  all  our 
Pharisaical  and  Papistical  leaven  of  men 's  feigned  religion :  which  al- 
though it  were  before  God  most  abominable,  and  contrary  to  God 's  com- 
mandments and  Christ's  pure  religion,  yet  it  was  praised  to  be  a  most 
godly  life,  and  brightest  state  of  perfection,"  and  so  forth.  After  an 
enumeration  of  several  "other  kinds  of  Papistical  superstitions  and 
abuses,"  the  Homily  towards  its  conclusion,  page  49,  exhorts  to  "Flee 
all  idolatory,  witchcraft,"  and  so  forth. 

For  the  present,  I  believe  that  I  have  proved  our  doctrine  of  ex- 
clusive salvation  to  be  more  liberal  than  that  of  Bishop  Kemp,  and 


422  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

next,  that  it  was  "that  true  and  faithful  minister  of  God,  King  Henry 
VIII,  who  put  away  the  superstitious,  idolatrous,  and  Pharisaical  ad- 
herents of  Antichrist"  the  Papists.  Thus  we  did  not  turn  out  our  Pro- 
testant brethren  to  be  damned,  but  they  left  us,  lest  they  should  bo 
lost  by  remaining  in  our  communion.  Is  it  then  not  ridiculous  in  Blanco 
"White  and  his  American  sponsors  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
to  upbraid  us  with  our  doctrine  of  exclusive  salvation?  Do  they  ex- 
pect that  we  shall  make  ours  as  illiberal  as  is  theirs?  God  forbid,  that 
we  should  exclude  from  every  hope  of  salvation  the  poor  Indian  who 
dies  knowing  nothing  of  Christ,  or  the  Protestant  Episcopalian  who 
is  perhaps  kept  from  our  communion  only  by  the  gross  misrepresenta- 
tions of  those  who  ought  to  know  better.  God  forbid  that  although 
we  deplore  their  want  of  faith,  we  should  say  that  their  works  of 
benevolence,  and  their  sincere  prayers  have  the  nature  of  sin !  If  they 
have  for  us  the  charity  which  we  have  for  them,  they  will  not  bear 
false  witness  against  us.     I  shall  continue  this  subject. 

Yours,  and  so  forth,  b.  c. 

LETTER  XXVII 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Mar.  12,  1827. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends, — It  is  well  to  keep  our  eye  closely  fixed  upon  the 
subject  of  our  examination.  I  am  not  at  present  inquiring  as  to  the 
correctness  or  the  incorrectness  of  the  doctrines  of  our  opponents :  but 
I  am  ascertaining  their  several  doctrines  upon  the  subject  of  exclusive 
salvation,  in  order  to  show  that  our  tenets  on  this  head  are  more  liberal 
than  theirs ;  and  therefore  that  the  charge  of  illiberality  upon  this  score 
came  with  a  very  bad  grace  from  them :  next,  I  desire  to  show  that  it 
was  not  we  who  left  their  communion,  alleging  that  we  could  not  be 
saved  if  we  remained  therein,  but  that  it  was  the  assertion  of  their 
predecessors,  that  they  could  not  with  safe  consciences  remain  in  the 
Church,  which  was  common  to  them  and  to  our  fathers ;  and  therefore 
they  went  out  from  us.  Thus  the  charge  of  holding  corrupt  and 
damnable  doctrines  was  made  upon  us,  not  by  us.  If  it  be  illiberal  and 
uncharitable  for  any  division  of  Christians  to  make  such  charges  against 
their  brethren,  let  the  imputation  of  want  of  liberality  and  charity  be 
east  upon  those  who  deserve  it:  for  our  parts,  nothing  will  gratify  us 
so  much  as  to  receive  our  brethren  back  to  our  communion.  Let  them 
only  destroy  those  documents  which  charge  us  with  having  corrupted 
the  doctrine  of  Christ :  let  them  only  admit  that  we  have  not  erred  from 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO    WHITE  423 


the  truth  of  the  Gospel,  and  there  shall  be  peace,  harmony  and  com- 
munion between  them  and  us  again. 

In  my  last,  I  have  shown  that  the  Church  of  England,  and  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  America,  are  more  confined  in  their 
doctrine  of  exclusive  salvation  than  is  the  Koman  Catholic  Church.  I 
have  also  shown  how  they  praise  God  for  having  raised  up  that  ' '  faithful 
and  true  minister  of  most  famous  memory.  King  Henry  VIII,"  to  put 
away  our  doctrine,  "to  eschew  all  our  Pharisaical  and  Papistical  leaven 
of  man's  feigned  religion."  I  now  proceed  to  the  exhibition  of  the 
tenets  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the  United  States :  in  doing  which 
I  use  their  Confession  of  Faith  and  Constitution  of  their  Church,  as 
printed  in  Philadelphia,  and  published  by  Anthony  Finley,  corner 
of  Chestnut  and  Fourth  streets,  1821,  copy-right  secured  by  the  Rever- 
end Ezra  Stiles  Ely,  D.  D.,  by  order  of  the  General  Assembly,  on  behalf 
of  the  Trustees  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  said  Church. 

The  chapter  iii  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  is  "Of  God's  Eternal  De- 
cree."    I  select  a  few  of  the  sections  of  this  chapter. 

"III.  By  the  decree  of  God,  for  the  manifestation  of  his  glory, 
some  men  and  angels  are  predestinated  unto  everlasting  life,  and  others 
fore-ordained  to  everlasting  death. 

"IV.  These  angels  and  men,  thus  predestinated  and  fore-ordained, 
are  particularly  and  unchangeably  designed;  and  their  number  is  so 
certain  and  definite  that  it  cannot  be  either  increased  or  diminished. 

"V.  Those  of  mankind  that  are  predestinated  unto  life,  God,  be- 
fore the  foundation  of  the  world  was  laid,  according  to  his  eternal  and 
immutable  purpose,  and  the  secret  counsel  and  good  pleasure  of  his 
will,  hath  chosen  in  Christ,  unto  everlasting  glory,  out  of  his  mere 
free  grace  and  love,  without  any  foresight  of  faith  or  good  works,  or 
perseverance  in  either  of  them,  or  any  other  thing  in  the  creature,  as 
conditions,  or  causes  moving  him  thereto;  and  all  to  the  praise  of  his 
glorious  grace. 

"VI.  As  God  hath  appointed  the  elect  unto  glory,  so  hath  he,  by 
the  eternal  and  most  free  purpose  of  his  will,  fore-ordained  all  the 
means  thereunto.  Wherefore  they  who  are  elected  being  fallen  in  Adam, 
are  redeemed  by  Christ,  are  efi'ectually  called  unto  faith  in  Christ  by 
his  Spirit  working  in  due  season;  are  justified,  adopted,  sanctified,  and 
kept  by  his  power  through  faith  unto  salvation.  Neither  are  any  other 
redeemed  by  Christ,  effectually  called,  justified,  adopted,  sanctified,  and 
saved ;  but  the  elect  only. 

"VII.  The  rest  of  mankind,  God  was  pleased,  according  to  the  un- 
searchable counsel  of  his  own  will,  whereby  he  extendeth  or  withholdeth 


424  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

mercy  as  he  pleaseth,  for  the  glory  of  his  sovereign  power  over  his  crea- 
tures, to  pass  by,  and  to  ordain  them  to  dishonor  and  wrath  for  their 
sin,  to  the  praise  of  his  glorious  justice." 

From  these  sections  I  gather  the  doctrine  of  that  Church  to  be, 
(1)  That  God  has  predestined  some  men  to  salvation;  (2)  That  he  has 
predestined  the  rest  of  mankind  to  damnation;  (3)  That  those  who  are 
predestined  to  salvation,  and  who  are  called  the  elect,  are  so  chosen, 
not  by  reason  of  any  good  which  they  do,  but  merely  because  God  so 
wills;  (4)  That  they  who  are  predestined  to  damnation  are  so  doomed, 
not  by  reason  of  any  prevision  of  their  misconduct,  for  his  decree  by 
which  they  are  so  predestined  was  not  made  because  he  foresaw  that  mis- 
conduct as  future;  for 

"II.  Although  God  knows  w^hatever  may  or  can  come  to  pass  upon 
all  supposed  conditions;  yet  hath  he  not  decreed  any  thing  because  he 
foresaw  it  as  future,  or  as  that  which  would  come  to  pass,  upon  such 
conditions;" 

but  for  the  manifestation  of  his  glory,  as  is  stated  in  section  iii;  (5) 
That  as  they  who  are  elected  are  effectually  called  to  faith  in  Christ, 
and  kept  through  faith  unto  salvation ;  no  person  will  be  saved  without 
faith. 

The  seventh  chapter  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  is,  "Of  God's  Cove- 
nant with  Man." 

"III.  Man,  by  his  fall,  having  made  himself  incapable  of  life  by 
that  covenant,  the  Lord  was  pleased  to  make  a  second,  commonly  called 
the  Covenant  of  Grace:  wherein  he  freely  offereth  unto  sinners  life  and 
salvation  by  Jesus  Christ,  requiring  of  them  faith  in  him,  that  they 
may  be  saved,  and  promising  to  give  unto  all  those  that  are  ordained 
unto  life  his  Holy  Spirit,  to  make  them  willing  and  able  to  believe." 

This  still  farther  evinces  the  position  which  I  have  taken ;  as  does 
chapter  viii,  ' '  Of  Christ  the  Mediator. ' ' 

"VIII.  To  all  those  for  whom  Christ  hath  purchased  redemption, 
he  doth  certainly  and  effectually  apply  and  communicate  to  the  same; 
making  intercession  for  them ;  and  revealing  unto  them,  in  and  by  the 
word,  the  mysteries  of  salvation;  effectually  persuading  them  by  his 
Spirit  to  believe  and  obey ;  and  governing  their  hearts  by  his  word  and 
Spirit ;  overcoming  all  their  enemies  by  his  almighty  power  and  wisdom, 
in  such  manner  and  ways  as  are  most  consonant  to  his  wonderful  and 
unsearchable  dispensation. ' ' 

To  these  I  may  add,  chapter  x,  "On  Effectual  Calling." 

"III.  Elect  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are  regenerated  and  saved 
by  Christ,  through  the  Spirit,  who  worketh  when,  and  where,  and  how  he 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  425 

pleaseth.  So  also  are  all  other  elect  persons,  who  are  incapable  of  being 
outwardly  called  by  the  ministry  of  the  word. 

"IV.  Others  not  elected,  although  they  may  be  called  by  the  min- 
istry of  the  word,  and  may  have  some  common  operations  of  the  Spirit, 
yet  they  never  truly  come  to  Christ,  and  therefore  cannot  be  saved: 
much  less  can  men,  not  possessing  the  Christian  religion,  be  saved  in 
any  other  way  whatsoever,  be  they  never  so  diligent  to  frame  their  lives 
according  to  the  light  of  nature,  and  the  law  of  that  religion  they  do 
profess;  and  to  assert  and  maintain  that  they  may,  is  very  pernicious, 
and  to  be  detested." 

I  might  here  add  several  other  passages,  but  enough  has  been  given 
to  shew  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  teaches  a  doctrine  of  exclusive 
salvation,  because  to  attain  salvation,  faith  is  necessary.  It  is  now  time 
to  see  what  that  faith  is.     Chapter  xiv  is  "Of  Saving  Faith." 

"I.  The  Grace  of  Faith,  whereby  the  elect  are  enabled  to  believe 
to  the  saving  of  their  souls,  is  the  work  of  the  spirit  of  Christ  in  their 
hearts ;  and  is  ordinarily  wrought  by  the  ministry  of  the  word :  by  which 
also,  and  by  the  administration  of  the  sacraments,  and  prayer,  it  is 
increased  and  strengthened. 

"II.  By  this  faith,  a  Christian  believeth  to  be  true  whatsoever  is 
revealed  in  the  word,  for  the  authority  of  God  himself  speaking  therein ; 
and  acteth  differently,  upon  that  which  each  particular  passage  thereof 
containeth ;  yielding  obedience  to  the  commands,  trembling  at  the  threat- 
enings,  and  embracing  the  promises  of  God  for  this  life,  and  that  which 
is  to  come.  But  the  principal  acts  of  saving  faith  are,  accepting,  receiv- 
ing and  resting  upon  Christ  alone  for  justification,  sanctifieation,  and 
eternal  life,  by  virtue  of  the  covenant  of  grace." 

"III.  This  faith  is  different  in  degrees,  weak  or  strong,  may  be 
often  and  many  ways  assailed  and  weakened,  but  gets  the  victory ;  grow- 
ing up  in  many  to  the  attainment  of  a  full  assurance  through  Christ, 
who  is  both  the  author  and  finisher  of  faith." 

What  we  call  faith,  or  the  belief  of  whatsoever  has  been  revealed 
by  God,  being  an  integral  portion  of  what  is  here  described  as  faith ; 
of  course  the  Presbyterian  Church  holds  fully  as  exclusive  a  principle 
as  we  do  when  we  profess  that  without  this  true  Catholic  faith,  no  one 
can  be  saved :  and  as  her  faith,  which  is  necessary  for  salvation,  contains 
or  comprehends  more  than  does  ours,  so  the  number  of  individuals  within 
the  extent  thereof  must  be  fewer,  and  consequently  her  principle  of 
exclusive  salvation  is  less  liberal  than  ours. 

Having  thus,  upon  the  general  view,  established  my  position,  I 
shall  confirm  it  by  enumerating  some  particulars.     In  my  last,  I,  at 


426  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

some  length,  and  I  fear  very  tediously,  but  I  trust  clearly,  showed  how 
far  more  liberal  the  doctrine  of  our  Church  is,  than  that  of  the  Protes- 
tant Episcopalian  Church,  regarding  the  works  of  such  as  are  not  jus- 
tified, or  have  not  faith.  The  same  observations  apply  here  with  equal 
force  at  least.     Chapter  xvi,  "Of  Good  Works." 

"VII.  Works  done  by  unregenerate  men,  although,  for  the  matter 
of  them,  they  may  be  things  which  God  commands,  and  of  good  use  both 
to  themselves  and  others ;  yet,  because  they  proceed  not  from  an  heart 
purified  by  faith,  nor  are  done  in  a  right  manner,  according  to  the  word, 
nor  to  a  right  end,  the  glory  of  God;  they  are  therefor  sinful  and  can- 
not please  God,  or  make  a  man  meet  to  receive  grace  from  God.  And 
yet  their  neglect  of  them  is  more  sinful  and  displeasing  unto  God." 

I  shall  only  remark  here  that  if  we  were  to  teach  that  a  benevolent 
Presbyterian  did  a  sinful  act  in  relieving  a  sick  brother ;  and  that  an 
Episcopalian  who  neglected  to  do  so  committed  a  greater  sin,  we  should 
expect  to  be  assailed  for  our  illiberality  by  every  human  being.  Our 
Church  teaches  us  that  the  Presbyterian  would  have  done  a  good  moral 
work,  and  that  the  Episcopalian  would  do  well  to  join  him  in  its  per- 
formance :  we  know  hundreds  of  our  separated  brethren  of  both  those 
Churches  who  do  those  good  acts;  we  respect  and  applaud  them  for 
their  good  moral  conduct ;  we  acknowledge  that  in  the  performance  of 
those  meritorious  works  they  frequently  give  good  example  to  our  breth- 
ren in  the  faith,  and  we  know  that  God  will  give  them  a  reward ;  we  trust 
they  may  be  rendered  meet  for  the  grace  of  true  faith.  How  gladly 
would  we  hail  their  return  to  that  ancient  Church  which  first  gave  the 
Gospel  to  their  fathers! 

In  the  above  extracts  it  wall  be  seen  that  the  doctrine  of  exclusive 
salvation  taught  in  the  Freshyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  is  not  more 
liberal  than  that  taught  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  w'hich  I 
have  before  shown  to  be  more  illiberal  than  that  taught  by  our  Church. 
I  shall  now  proceed  to  examine  more  minutely  other  portions  of  the 
Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  teaches  us,  whether  correctly  or  not 
is  not  now  to  the  purpose,  that  we  may  pray  for  all  persons ;  for  heretics, 
schismatics,  infidels,  excommunicated  persons,  and  notorious  criminals: 
some  of  her  public  prayers  are  specially  framed  to  beseech  God  to  be- 
stow his  grace  upon  those  persons  to  convert  them,  to  bless  them,  and  so 
forth.  She  teaches  her  children  that  it  is  an  act  of  charity  to  pray  fre- 
quently for  them.  The  Church  also  with  confidence  in  the  mercies  of 
the  Saviour  tells  us  that  it  is  a  holy  and  a  wholesome  thought  to  pray  for 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  427 

the  dead.  The  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith  tells  us,  chapter  xxi, 
' '  Of  Religious  Worship  and  the  Sabbath  day, ' '  page  107  : 

"IV.  Prayer  is  to  be  made  for  things  lawful,  and  for  all  sorts  of 
men  living,  or  that  shall  live  hereafter;  but  not  for  the  dead,  nor  for 
those  of  whom  it  may  be  known  that  they  have  sinned  the  sin  unto 
death." 

Here,  we  are  not  only  prohibited  from  praying  for  the  dead,  but 
also  for  some  living  description  of  sinners;  so  that  upon  this  score  we 
ought  not  to  be  taxed  for  illiberal  tenets  of  exclusive  salvation  by  the 
gentlemen  who  adhere  to  this  confession  of  faith. 

I  have  shown  that  the  predecessors  of  the  Episcopalians,  and  ours, 
were  in  one  Church  which  they  left,  and  upon  the  plea  that  they  could 
not  be  saved  if  they  remained  therein;  and  I  concluded  that  we  were 
not  then  the  persons  who  denounced  damnation  against  those  who  went 
out,  for  having  gone,  but  they  denounced  it  against  us  for  not  going. 
I  shall  show  you  that  we  are  denounced  in  the  same  way  by  the  con- 
fessions of  other  Churches.  Still  continuing  to  look  at  the  Presbyterian 
Confession,  chapter  xxv,  ' '  Of  the  Church, ' '  page  125 : 

"II.  The  visible  Church,  which  is  also  Catholic  or  universal  under 
the  gospel,  (not  confined  to  one  nation  as  before  under  the  law)  consists 
of  all  those  throughout  the  world,  that  profess  the  true  religion,  together 
with  their  children;  and  is  the  kingdom  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the 
house  and  family  of  God,  out  of  which  there  is  no  ordinary  possibility 
of  salvation." 

In  this  it  is  plainly  taught  that  there  is  no  salvation  to  be  had, 
ordinarily,  out  of  the  visible  Church.     In  page  127,  we  are  taught : 

"V.  The  purest  Churches  under  heaven  are  subject  both  to  mix- 
ture and  error ;  and  some  have  so  degenerated,  as  to  become  no  Churches 
of  Christ,  but  synagogues  of  Satan.  Nevertheless,  there  shall  be  always 
a  Church  on  earth,  to  worship  God  according  to  his  will. ' ' 

The  next  article,  page  128,  sets  very  quietly  at  rest  all  question  as 
to  what  was  meant  by  a  Church  which  had  so  degenerated  as  to  become 
a  synagogue  of  Satan. 

"VI.  There  is  no  other  head  of  the  Church  but  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  Nor  can  the  Pope  of  Eome  in  any  sense  be  head  thereof;  but 
is  that  anarchist,  that  man  of  sin,  and  son  of  perdition,  that  exalteth 
himself,  in  the  Church,  against  Christ,  and  all  that  is  called  God." 

There  can  be  little  doubt,  then,  of  their  having  gone  out  from  us 
upon  the  allegation  of  our  being  joined  to  Antichrist,  and  being  children 
of  perdition:  even  at  this  day,  in  those  States,  we  are  frequently  com- 
plimented with  the  appellation,  in  papers  which  are  called  religious, 


428  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

and  by  writers  who  are  said  to  be  considered  gentlemen,  and  who  have 
some  pretensions  to  scholarship.  I  do  not  notice  that  vehement  brawl- 
ings  of  unlettered  fanatics,  nor  the  yelling  denunciations  of  infuriated 
rhapsodists;  of  this  each  returning  Sunday  brings  sufficient  for  itself. 
I  allude  to  the  deliberately  written,  and  the  deliberately  selected  vitu- 
peration of  the  Pope  and  Papists  which  forms  a  large  portion  of  the 
contents  of  our  religious  publications. 

The  confession  counts  as  one  of  our  errors,  a  distinction  which  we 
draw  between  lesser  offences  of  God  which  we  call  venial,  and  greater 
offences  which  we  call  mortal.  We  teach  that  God  will  not  condemn 
to  everlasting  torments  in  hell,  those  persons  who  die  guilty  of  only 
venial  sin;  we  say  they  will  endure  only  a  temporary  punishment  pro- 
portioned to  their  offences,  after  which  endurance  they  will  be  admitted 
into  heaven:  and  that  only  they  who  die  guilty  of  mortal  or  grievous 
sins  will  be  condemned  to  hell  for  eternity.  The  Confession,  chapter 
XV,  page  76,  says: 

"IV.  As  there  is  no  sin  so  small  but  it  deserves  damnation;  so 
there  is  no  sin  so  great  that  it  can  bring  damnation  upon  those  who  truly 
repent. ' ' 

Yet  we  are  taxed  with  the  illiberality  and  cruelty  of  our  doctrine, 
by  the  adherents  of  the  confession!!!  In  chapter  xxx,  "Of  Church 
censures,"  page  145: 

"Church  censures  are  necessary  for  the  reclaiming  and  gaining  of 
offending  brethren ;  for  deterring  of  others  from  like  offences ;  for  purg- 
ing out  of  that  leaven  which  might  infect  the  w^hole  lump;  for  vindi- 
cating the  honor  of  Christ  and  the  holy  profession  of  the  Gospel;  and 
for  preventing  the  wrath  of  God,  which  might  justly  fall  upon  the 
Church,  if  they  should  suffer  his  covenant,  and  the  seals  thereof,  to  be 
profaned  by  notorious  and  obstinate  offenders." 

This  power  is  that  of  which  they  complain  as  most  tyrannical  usur- 
pation of  divine  prerogative,  in  our  Church,  and  yet  they  use  it  them- 
selves and  thus  exclude  from  that  visible  Church,  and  from  the  ordinary 
means  of  salvation,  notorious  and  obstinate  offenders.  We  have  seen 
before  that  in  giving  instructions  to  their  flocks  whom  not  to  marry,  we 
were  specially  noticed:  "therefore  such  as  profess  the  true  reformed 
religion  should  not  marry  wnth  Infidels,  Papists,  or  other  Idolators:" 
nor  "with  such  as  are  notoriously  wicked  in  their  life,  or  maintain 
damnable  heresies."  All  this  advice  might  be  very  good,  but  it  really 
was  very  curious  and  amusing  to  find  that  portion  of  the  venerable 
body  which  subscribed  this  Confession  of  Faith  with  sober  and  grave 
countenances  telling  the  Roman  Catholics  to  "remove  that  obstacle  to 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  429 

mutual  benevolence,  and  perfect  community  of  political  privileges,  th.? 
doctrine  of  exclusive  salvation,  from  their  Church. ' '  Perhaps  this  might 
explain,  why  to  this  day  the  Roman  Catholics  are  left  without  that  com- 
munity of  political  privileges,  I  would  call  them  rights,  in  North  Caro- 
lina and  New  Jersey.  I  am  really  tired  of  this  disgusting  topic,  although 
I  have  not  produced  half  of  my  testimony ;  I  shall  however  take  a  respite 
for  to-day  and  conclude  by  asserting  what  I  think  I  have  proved,  viz. 
that  our  doctrine  of  exclusive  salvation  is  not  as  extensively  illiberal 
as  that  of  either  the  Episcopalian  or  the  Presbyterian ;  that  we  did  not 
turn  them  out  from  our  body,  but  they  left  us,  alleging  that  with  safety 
to  their  souls,  they  could  not  stay  in  our  communion;  and  that  besides 
having  left  us  to  damnation  for  our  corruption  of  God's  pure  religion, 
they  put  us  into  very  bad  company  and  called  us  very  unbecoming 
names;  and  then  modestly  tell  the  world  that  our  doctrine  of  exclusive 
salvation  is  really  too  shocking.  I  must  test  the  claims  of  our  other 
opponents. 

Yours,  and  so  forth,  b.  c. 

LETTER  XXVIII 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Mar.  19,  1827. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends, — I  have  exhibited  to  you  the  grounds  of  my  assertion 
that  the  doctrine  of  exclusive  salvation  as  taught  in  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  is  not  as  excluding  as  that  taught  in  the  Protestant  Episcopalian 
and  Presbyterian  Churches.  The  next  portion  of  those  gentlemen  who 
appeared  to  be  shocked  at  the  illiberality  of  our  tenets,  which  I  shall 
consider,  is  that  of  the  Congregational  Church.  Their  doctrine  in  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  published  by  W.  W.  Woodward,  No.  52,  South 
Second,  corner  of  Chestnut  street,  Philadelphia,  1813,  which  is  the 
Westminster  Confession,  is  in  all  the  articles  and  sections  quoted  in  my 
last  letter,  word  for  word,  the  same  as  that  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
saving  only  one  word,  which  I  look  upon  to  have  been  an  error  of  the 
printer,  in  the  Presbyterian  copy,  which  in  section  iv,  chapter  x,  has  ' '  not 
psossesing  the  Christian  religion,"  where  this  of  the  Congregationalist 
Churches  has  "not  professing  the  Christian  religion."  Therefore,  the 
observations  made  upon  the  one  apply  with  equal  force  to  the  other. 

The  Confession  was  "agreed  upon  as  a  part  of  the  covenanted 
uniformity  in  religion  betwixt  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  the  kingdoms 
of  Scotland,  England,  and  Ireland,"  "by  an  assembly  of  Divines  at 
Westminster  with  the  assistance  of  commissioners  from  the  Church  of 


430  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


Scotland."  The  assembly  was  opened  by  the  authority  of  Parliament 
on  the  first  of  July,  1643,  and  the  Confession  was  received  by  the  as- 
sembly at  Edinburgh  on  the  27th  of  August,  1647,  and  was  ratified  and 
approved  of  by  the  Scotch  Parliament  on  the  7th  of  February,  1649. 

But  previously  to  this,  the  Church  of  Scotland  had  made  its  Na- 
tional Covenant  or  the  Confession  of  Faith,  which  may  be  found  in 
page  393,  of  the  book  published  by  Woodward.  I  have  before  adverted 
to  this  document  which  was  first  subscribed  in  1580,  and  ratified  by  the 
general  assembly  on  several  occasions — and  by  the  Scotch  Parliament 
on  the  11th  of  June,  1640,  on  which  occasion  also  it  was  enacted  with 
civil  pains  against  recusants.  Let  us  see  what  is  its  doctrine  of  exclu- 
sive salvation.  The  subscribers  "protest,  believe  with  their  hearts,  con- 
fess with  their  mouths,  subscribe  with  their  hands,  and  constantly  affirm 
before  God  and  the  whole  world,  that  this  only  is  the  true  Christian 
faith  and  religion  pleasing  to  God,  and  bringing  salvation  to  man,'^ 
"defended,"  page  394,  "as  God's  eternal  truth,  and  only  ground  of  sal- 
vation, ' '  they  ' '  abhor  and  detest  all  contrary  religion  and  doctrine ;  but 
chiefly  all  kinds  of  Papistry  in  general  and  particular  heads."  If  you 
look  to  my  Letter  twenty,  you  will  find  the  special  heads  enumerated, 
which  occupy  more  than  a  page  of  the  book.  In  page  398,  they  declare 
all  who  gainsay  the  doctrine  of  the  confession  of  their  faith  or  refuse 
their  ministration  of  the  sacraments,  "to  be  no  members  of  the  true 
kirk  within  this  realm  and  true  religion  presently  professed,  so  long  as 
they  keep  themselves  so  divided  from  the  society  of  Christ's  body," 
also,  "that  there  is  no  other  face  of  kirk  nor  other  face  of  religion,  than 
was  presently  at  that  time,  by  the  favor  of  God,  established  within  this 
realm,"  which  therefore  is  "ever  styled  God's  true  religion,  Christ's 
true  religion,  the  true  and  Christian  religion,  and  a  perfect  religion." 
All  within  this  realm  are  bound  "to  recant  all  doctrines  and  errors 
repugnant  to  any  of  the  said  articles."  "Papists"  are  "adversaries 
of  the  true  religion. ' '  In  page  402,  they  swear  by  the  great  name  of  the 
Lord  our  God,  to  "resist  all  these  contrary  errors  and  corruptions"  "all 
the  days  of  our  life,"  the  errors  and  corruptions  were  "novations  and 
evils"  amongst  the  Protestants,  which  they  "are  obliged  to  detest  and 
abhor  them  amongst  other  particular  heads  of  Papistry  abjured  therein." 

In  "the  solemn  league  and  covenant  for  the  reformation  of  religion 
and  other  purposes,  agreed  upon  by  commissioners  from  the  Parliament, 
and  the  assembly  of  Divines  of  Scotland  and  the  like  commissioners  on 
the  part  of  England,  in  1643:  in  the  preamble  it  is  stated,  page  411, 
to  be  caused  by  the  necessity  of  opposing  the  practices,  and  so  forth, 
"of  the  enemies  of  God,  against  the  true  religion,"  and  so  forth.     The 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  431 

second  article,  page  412,  binds  them  to  "endeavor  the  extirpation  of 
Popery,  Prelacy,  superstition,  heresy,  schism,  profaneness,  and  whatso- 
ever else  shall  be  found  contrary  to  sound  doctrine,  and  the  power  of 
godliness,  lest  they  partake  of  other  men's  sins,  and  thereby  be  in  danger 
to  receive  of  their  plagues,"  and  so  forth.  In  the  concluding  paragraph, 
page  414,  they  pray  God  to  bless  them  for  the  "encouragement  to  other 
Christian  Churches  groaning  under  or  in  danger  of  the  yoke  of  Anti- 
christian  tyranny,  to  join  in  the  same,"  and  so  forth. 

In  the  Directory  for  public  worship  agreed  upon  by  the  assembly 
of  Divines  at  Westminster,  under  the  head  "Of  Public  Prayer  before 
the  Sermon,"  the  minister  is  directed  amongst  other  things  to  call  upon 
the  Lord  to  this  effect,  page  442 : 

"To  pray  for  the  propagation  of  the  gospel  and  kingdom  of  Christ 
to  all  nations;  for  the  conversion  of  the  Jews,  the  fulness  of  the  Gen- 
tiles, the  fall  of  Antichrist,  and  the  hastening  of  the  second  coming  of 
our  Lord;  for  the  deliverance  of  the  distressed  churches  abroad  from 
the  tyranny  of  the  antichristian  faction,  and  from  the  cruel  oppressions 
and  blasphemies  of  the  Turk;  for  the  blessing  of  God  upon  all  the  re- 
formed churches,  especially  upon  the  churches  and  kingdoms  of  Scot- 
land, England  and  Ireland,  now  more  strictly  and  religiously  united  in 
the  solemn  national  league  and  covenant ;  and  for  our  plantations  in  the 
remote  parts  of  the  world:  more  particularly  for  that  church  and  king- 
dom whereof  we  are  members,  that  therein  God  would  establish  peace 
and  truth,  the  purity  of  all  his  ordinances,  and  the  power  of  godliness; 
prevent  and  remove  heresy,  schism,  profaneness,  superstition,  security 
and  unfruitfulness  under  the  means  of  grace;  heal  all  our  rents  and 
divisions,  and  preserve  us  from  breach  of  our  Solemn  Covenant." 

Under  the  head  "Of  Preaching  the  Word,"  page  446,  the  minister 
is  directed  how  to  act  in  confuting  false  doctrines. 

Under  the  head  "Of  Prayer  after  Sermon,"  page  448,  the  minister 
is  directed  to  give  thanks  for  the  admirable  goodness  of  God  in  freeing 
the  land  from  Antichristian  darkness  and  tyranny,  and  so  forth. 

Under  the  head  "Concerning  Visitation  of  the  Sick,"  the  minister 
is  directed,  page  460,  to  convince  the  sick  person  "to  apprehend  the 
justice  and  wrath  of  God,  before  whom  none  can  stand  but  he  that  lost 
in  himself,  layeth  hold  upon  Christ  by  faith." 

In  the  directions  for  family  worship,  the  fifth  direction,  page  473 
is  the  following: 

"V.  Let  no  idler  who  hath  no  particular  calling,  or  vagrant  person 
under  a  pretence  of  a  calling,  be  suffered  to  perform  worship  in  families, 
to  or  for  the  same;  seeing  persons  tainted  with  errors  or  aiming  at 


432  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

division,  may  be  ready  (after  that  manner)  to  creep  into  houses,  and 
lead  captive  silly  and  unstable  souls." 

In  the  Form  of  Church  Government,  Rule  3,  for  examination  of 
a  candidate  for  Ordination,  page  503,  inquiry  is  to  be  made  "of  his 
knowledge  of  the  grounds  of  religion  and  of  his  ability  to  defend  the 
orthodox  doctrine  contained  in  them,  against  all  unsound  and  erroneous 
opinions. ' ' 

In  the  clause,  six,  "The  Directory  for  the  Ordination  of  Ministers," 
it  is  directed  that  the  candidate  shall  be  asked  in  the  face  of  the  congre- 
gation, after  the  sermon,  by  the  minister  who  hath  preached,  amongst 
other  things  "concerning  his  faith  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  his  persuasion 
of  the  truth  of  the  reformed  religion,  according  to  the  scripture,"  "his 
zeal  and  faithfulness  in  maintaining  the  truth  of  the  gospel,  and  the 
unity  of  the  church,  against  error  and  schism. ' ' 

From  these  the  conclusions  are  obviously,  1.  That  the  true  Chris- 
tian faith  only  will  bring  man  to  salvation;  and  hence  the  orthodox 
ministers  are  to  strive  against  and  confute  heresies,  errors  in  faith,  and 
all  unsound  doctrines.  2.  That  Roman  Catholics  who  are  the  adher- 
ents to  the  Pope,  who  is  called  Antichrist,  chapter  xxv,  article  vi,  page 
136,  are  declared  to  be  enemies  of  God  and  of  the  true  religion ;  they  are 
divided  from  Christ 's  body,  they  are  no  members  of  the  true  kirk ;  their 
errors  and  corruptions  of  papistry,  are  to  be  detested  and  abhorred. 
Yet  the  reverend  gentlemen  who  have  subscribed  and  adopted  this  col- 
lection of  doctrinal  documents  as  their  standard  of  belief,  have  the 
modesty  to  tell  us  through  White,  that  our  doctrine  of  exclusive  salva- 
tion, is  an  obstacle  to  mutual  benevolence,  and  perfect  community  of 
political  privileges ! ! ! 

Before  I  proceed  farther  in  the  examination  of  the  claims  to  con- 
sistency of  those  who,  holding  a  more  liberal  doctrine  than  ours,  charged 
us  with  being  intolerant  and  uncharitable,  let  us  take  a  momentary 
glance  at  their  opinions  of  each  other;  after  which  a  curious  question 
would  be,  how  such  discordant  parties  could  give  the  public  so  curious 
an  exhibition. 

In  the  "solemn  acknowledgement  of  public  sins,  and  breaches  of 
the  covenant,"  and  so  forth,  made  by  order  of  the  commission  of  the 
General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  passed  at  Edinburgh, 
October  6th,  1648,  the  first  solemn  promise  which  they  make  is  the  fol- 
lowing, page  426 : 

"1.  Because  religion  is  of  all  things  the  most  excellent  and  pre- 
cious, the  advancing  and  promoting  the  power  thereof  against  all  ungod- 
liness and  profanity,  the  securing  and  preserving  the  purity  thereof 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  433 


against  all  error,  heresy  and  schism,  and  namely  Independency,  Anabap- 
tism,  Antinomianism,  Arminianism,  and  Socinianism,  Familism,  Liber- 
tinism, Scepticism,  and  Erastianism,  and  the  carrying  on  the  work  of 
uniformity,  shall  be  studied  and  endeavored  by  us  before  all  worldly 
interests,  whether  concerning  the  king,  ourselves,  or  any  other  what- 
somever. ' ' 

It  is  a  little  curious  to  find  several  of  those  whose  errors,  heresies, 
and  schisms  are  here  said  to  be  against  the  purity  of  religion,  uniting 
with  those  who  made  the  promise  to  God  against  them,  or  the  successors 
of  those  sponsors,  against  us  as  their  common  object  of  assault.  But 
how  fares  Bishop  Kemp  and  his  "Apostolic  Church''  in  this  point  of 
view  1  We  shall  here  give  a  passage  from  the  preface  to  the  Directory, 
page  435 : 

"Howbeit,  long  and  sad  experience  has  made  it  manifest,  that  the 
liturgy  used  in  the  Church  of  England  (notwithstanding  all  the  pains 
and  religious  intentions  of  the  compilers  of  it)  hath  proved  an  offence, 
not  only  to  many  of  the  godly  at  home,  but  also  to  the  reformed  Churches 
abroad.  For,  not  to  speak  of  urging  the  reading  of  all  the  prayers, 
which  very  greatly  increased  the  burden  of  it,  the  many  unprofitable 
and  burdensome  ceremonies  contained  in  it  have  occasioned  much  mis- 
chief, as  well  by  disquieting  the  consciences  of  many  godly  ministers 
and  people,  who  could  not  yield  unto  them,  as  by  depriving  them  of  the 
ordinances  of  God,  which  they  might  not  enjoy  without  conforming  or 
subscribing  to  those  ceremonies.  Sundry  good  Christians  have  been,  by 
means  thereof,  kept  from  the  Lord's  table;  and  divers  able  and  faith- 
ful ministers  debarred  from  the  exercise  of  their  ministry  (to  the  endan- 
gering of  many  thousand  souls,  in  a  time  of  such  scarcity  of  faithful 
pastors),  and  spoiled  of  their  livelihood,  to  the  undoing  of  them  and 
their  families.  Prelates  and  their  faction  have  labored  to  raise  the 
estimation  of  it  to  such  an  height  as  if  there  were  no  other  worship,  or 
way  of  worship  of  God  amongst  us,  but  only  the  service-book;  to  the 
great  hindrance  of  the  preaching  of  the  word,  and  (in  some  places 
especially  of  late)  to  the  justling  of  it  out  as  unnecessary,  or,  at  best, 
as  far  inferior  to  the  reading  of  common  prayer,  which  was  made  no 
better  than  an  idol,  by  many  ignorant  and  superstitious  people,  who, 
pleasing  themselves  in  their  presence  at  that  service,  and  their  lip-labor 
in  bearing  their  part  in  it,  have  thereby  hardened  themselves  in  their 
ignorance  and  carelessness  of  saving  knowledge  and  true  piety. 

"In  the  meantime.  Papists  boasted  that  the  book  was  a  compliance 
with  them  in  a  great  part  of  their  service ;  and  so  were  not  a  little  con- 
firmed in  their  superstition  and  idolatry,  expecting  rather  our  return  to 


434  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

them  than  endeavoring  the  reformation  of  themselves;  in  which  expec- 
tation they  were  of  late  very  much  encouraged,  while,  upon  the  pre- 
tended warrantableness  of  imposing  of  the  former  ceremonies,  new  ones 
were  daily  intruded  upon  the  Church. 

"Add  hereunto  (which  was  not  foreseen,  but  since  hath  come  to 
pass),  that  the  liturgy  hath  been  a  great  means,  as  on  the  one  hand,  to 
make  and  increase  an  idle  and  unedifying  ministry,  which  contended 
itself  with  set  forms  made  to  their  hands  by  others,  without  putting 
forth  themselves  to  exercise  the  gift  of  prayer  with  which  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  pleaseth  to  furnish  all  his  servants,  whom  he  calls  to  that 
office;  so,  on  the  other  side,  it  hath  been  (and  ever  would  be,  if  con- 
tinued) a  matter  of  endless  strife  and  contention  in  the  Church,  and 
a  snare  both  to  many  godly  and  faithful  ministers,  who  have  been  per- 
secuted and  silenced  upon  that  occasion,  and  to  others  of  hopeful  parts, 
many  of  which  have  been,  and  more  still  would  be,  diverted  from  all 
thoughts  of  the  ministry  to  other  studies ;  especially  in  these  latter  times, 
wherein  God  vouchsafeth  to  his  people  more  and  better  means  for  the 
discovery  of  error  and  superstition,  and  for  attaining  of  knowledge  in 
the  mysteries  of  godliness,  and  gifts  in  preaching  and  prayer." 

Suppose  I  were  to  leave  that  Church  which  they  have  so  thought- 
lessly assailed,  could  the  venerable  body  give  me  an  unanimous  vote 
as  to  which  of  themselves  I  should  join  to  be  more  secure  of  my  salva- 
tion? 

The  article  xxxvi  of  Bishop  Kemp's  Church  is  "Of  Consecration 
of  Bishops  and  Ministers." 

"The  Book  of  Consecration  of  Bishops  and  Ordering  of  Priests  and 
Deacons,  as  set  forth  hy  the  General  Convention  of  this  Church,  in  1792, 
doth  contain  all  things  necessary  to  such  consecration  and  ordering; 
neither  hath  it  any  thing  that,  of  itself,  is  superstitious  and  ungodly; 
and,  therefore,  whosoever  are  consecrated  or  ordered  according  to  said 
form,  we  decree  all  such  to  be  rightly,  orderly,  and  lawfully  consecrated 
and  ordered." 

The  preface  to  the  book  thus  approved  of,  and  declared  to  be  free 
from  superstition  is  the  following: 

"It  is  evident  unto  all  men,  diligently  reading  Holy  Scripture  and 
ancient  authors,  that  from  the  Apostles'  time  there  have  been  these 
orders  of  ministers  in  Christ's  Church:  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons. 
Which  offices  were  evermore  had  in  such  reverend  estimation,  that  no 
man  might  presume  to  execute  any  of  them,  except  he  were  first  called, 
tried,  examined,  and  known  to  have  such  qualities  as  are  requisite  for 
the  same;  and  also  by  public  prayer,  with  imposition  of  hands,  were 


two  CALUMNIES    OF  J.   BLANCO   WHITE  435 

approved  and  admitted  thereunto  by  lawful  authority.  And,  therefore, 
to  the  intent  that  these  orders  may  be  continued,  and  reverently  used 
and  esteemed  in  this  Church,  no  man  shall  be  accounted,  or  taken  to  be 
a  lawful  Bishop,  Priest,  or  Deacon,  in  this  Church,  or  suffered  to  exe- 
cute any  of  the  said  functions,  except  he  be  called,  tried,  examined,  and 
admitted  thereunto,  according  to  the  form  hereafter  following,  or  hath 
had  episcopal  consecration  or  ordination." 

Thus  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  rejects  as  invalid,  Presby- 
terian ordination,  and  declares  as  sound  doctrine,  that  her  own  form  is 
not  superstitious.  The  Directory,  page  493,  under  the  head  "Of  Classical 
Assemblies,"  denies  that  it  is  evident  to  all  men  reading  the  Scriptures, 
that  there  were  those  three  orders  in  the  Church,  and  undertakes  to 
show,  [that]  "the  Scripture  doth  hold  out  a  presbytery  in  a  Church." 

The  Directory  denies  the  necessity  or  propriety  of  Episcopal  con- 
secration or  ordination,  but  declares  it  to  belong  to  the  preaching  min- 
isters or  presbj'ters,  as  under  the  head  touching  the  doctrine  of  ordina- 
tion, page  499,  paragraph  4 — "Every  minister  of  the  word,  is  to  be 
ordained  by  imposition  of  hands,  and  prayer,  with  fasting,  by  those 
preaching  presbyters  to  whom  it  doth  belong. ' '  And  in  page  501,  under 
the  head  concerning  the  doctrinal  part  of  the  ordination  of  ministers, 
column  4,  it  is  repeated,  and  in  column  10,  we  read:  "Preaching  pres- 
byters orderly  associated,  either  in  cities  or  neighboring  villages  are  those 
to  whom  the  imposition  of  hands  doth  appertain,  for  those  congregations 
within  their  bounds  respectively." 

The  general  assembly  of  the  kirk  of  Scotland,  in  its  act  approving 
the  propositions  concerning  kirk  government  and  ordination  of  ministers, 
passed  at  Edinburgh,  on  the  10th  of  February,  1645,  gave  as  one  of 
the  reasons  of  its  assent :  ' '  and  considering,  that  as  in  former  times  there 
did,  so  hereafter,  there  may  arise,  through  the  nearness  of  contagion, 
manifold  mischiefs  to  this  kirk  from  a  corrupt  form  of  government  in 
the  kirk  of  England."  A  very  slight  reference  to  the  passages  before 
quoted  concerning  the  Prelatical  faction  and  the  superstitious  ceremonies 
of  the  common  prayer,  and  service  book,  will  show  what  was  thought  of 
the  Episcopal  ordination  service. 

I  would  then  merely  remark  that  we  have  those  persons  who  joined 
in  the  cry  against  us,  here  arrayed  against  each  other,  each  proclaiming 
the  doctrine  of  exclusive  salvation,  each  claiming  to  have  the  truth  on 
his  side,  and  the  error  on  the  side  of  his  opponent,  one  denying  the 
validity  of  the  ordination  of  the  other,  and  the  person  thus  unchurched, 
proclaiming  that  he  who  condemns  him  is  corrupt,  and  superstitious. 
Yet  it  is  by  a  group  of  gentlemen  of  this  description  we  are  assailed  for 


436  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


holding  a  much  milder  doctrine  of  exclusive  salvation  than  either  of 
themselves. 

It  has  been  always  the  cry  of  our  brethren  of  the  Protestant 
Churches,  that  we  held  such  intolerant  and  uncharitable  doctrines  as 
made  us  unfit  for  society:  they  must  have  been  very  thoughtless  when 
they  made  the  charge,  because  they  not  only  denounced  us,  but  de- 
nounced each  other.  Until  the  period  of  their  separation  from  us,  and 
from  each  other,  there  was  unity  and  peace;  they  made  the  separation 
upon  the  ground  of  our  being  in  a  state  of  damnable  idolatry  and  error, 
yet,  they  soon  began  to  charge  each  other  in  like  manner:  unity  was 
lost,  peace  was  banished,  charity  was  seldom  found,  discord  and  dis- 
sension have  unfortunately  characterized  the  separation.  This  fact  is 
admitted,  and  is  deplored  in  the  Book  of  Homilies  even  in  the  days  of 
Edward  VI,  in  the  first  part  of  the  Sermon  against  Contention  and 
Brawling,  page  112 : 

"St.  Paul  could  not  abide  to  hear  among  the  Corinthians  these 
words  of  discord  or  dissension,  'I  hold  of  Paul,  I  of  Cephas,  and  I  of 
Apollos:'  what  would  he  then  say  if  he  heard  these  words  of  conten- 
tion, which  be  now  almost  in  every  man's  mouth?  He  is  a  Pharisee, 
he  is  a  Gospeller,  he  is  of  the  new  sort,  he  is  of  the  old  faith,  he  is  a 
new^-broached  brother,  he  is  a  good  Catholic  father,  he  is  a  Papist,  he  is 
an  heretic.  0  how  the  Church  is  divided !  0  how  the  cities  be  cut  and 
mangled !  0  how  the  coat  of  Christ,  that  was  without  seam,  is  all  rent 
and  torn!  O  body  mystical  of  Christ,  where  is  that  holy  and  happy 
unity,  out  of  the  which  whosoever  is,  he  is  not  in  Christ  ?  If  one  member 
be  pulled  from  another,  where  is  the  body  ?  If  the  body  be  drawn  from 
the  head,  where  is  the  life  of  the  body?  We  cannot  be  joined  to  Christ 
our  Head,  except  we  be  glued  with  concord  and  charity  one  to  another. 
For  he  that  is  not  of  this  unity  is  not  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  which  is 
a  congregation  or  unity  together,  and  not  a  division.  St.  Paul  saith, 
'That  as  long  as  emulation  or  envying,  contention,  and  factions  or  sects 
be  among  us,  we  be  carnal,  and  walk  according  to  the  fleshly  man. '  And 
St.  James  saith,  'If  ye  have  bitter  emulation  or  envying,  and  contention 
in  your  hearts,  glory  not  of  it :  for  where  contention  is,  there  is  unstead- 
fastness  and  all  evil  deeds.'  And  why  do  we  not  hear  St.  Paul,  which 
prayeth  us,  whereas  he  might  command  us,  saying,  *  I  beseech  you  in  the 
name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  you  will  speak  all  one  thing,  and 
that  there  be  no  dissension  among  you ;  but  that  you  will  be  one  whole 
body,  of  one  mind,  and  of  one  opinion  in  the  truth.'  If  his  desire  be 
reasonable  and  honest,  why  do  we  not  grant  it?  If  his  request  be  for 
our  profit,  why  do  we  refuse  it  ?     And  if  we  list  not  to  hear  his  petition 


two  CALUMNIES   OF   J.   BLANCO   WHITE  437 

of  prayer,  yet  let  us  hear  his  exhortation,  where  he  saith,  '  I  exhort  you, 
that  you  walk  as  it  beeometh  the  vocation  in  which  you  be  called,  with 
all  submission  and  meekness,  with  lenity  and  softness  of  mind,  bearing 
with  one  another  in  charity,  studying  to  keep  the  unity  of  the  Spirit 
by  the  bond  of  peace :  for  there  is  but  one  body,  one  Spirit,  one  faith,  one 
baptism.'  There  is,  saith  he,  but  one  body,  of  the  which  he  can  be  no 
lively  member,  that  is  at  variance  with  the  other  members.  There  is 
one  Spirit,  which  joineth  and  knitteth  all  things  in  one.  And  how  can 
this  one  Spirit  reign  in  us,  when  we  among  ourselves  be  divided  ?  There 
is  but  one  faith;  and  how  can  we  then  say,  he  is  of  the  old  faith;  and 
he  is  of  the  new  faith?  There  is  but  one  baptism;  and  then  shall  not 
all  they  which  be  baptized  be  one  ?  Contention  causeth  division,  where- 
fore it  ought  not  to  be  among  Christians,  whom  one  faith  and  baptism 
joined  in  an  unity.  But  if  we  contemn  St.  Paul's  request  and  exhor- 
tation, yet  at  the  least  let  us  regard  his  earnest  entreating,  in  the  which 
he  doth  very  earnestly  charge  us,  and  (as  I  may  so  speak)  conjure  us 
in  this  form  and  manner,  "If  there  be  any  consolation  in  Christ,  if 
there  be  any  comfort  of  love,  if  you  have  any  fellowship  of  the  Spirit, 
if  you  have  any  bowels  of  pity  and  compassion,  fulfil  my  joy,  being  all 
alike  affected,  having  one  charity,  being  of  one  mind,  one  opinion,  that 
nothing  be  done  by  contention,  or  vain-glory.  "Who  is  he,  that  hath 
any  bowels  of  pity  that  will  not  be  moved  with  these  words  so  pithy? 
Whose  heart  is  so  stoney,  that  the  sword  of  these  words,  which  be  more 
sharp  than  any  two-edged  sword,  may  not  cut  and  break  asunder? 
Wherefore,  let  us  endeavor  ourselves  to  fulfil  St.  Paul's  joy  here  in  this 
place,  which  shall  be  at  length  to  our  great  joy  in  another  place.  Let 
us  so  read  the  Scripture,  that  by  reading  thereof  we  may  be  made  the 
better  livers,  rather  than  the  more  contentious  disputers.  If  any  thing 
be  necessary  to  be  taught,  reasoned,  or  disputed,  let  us  do  it  with  all 
meekness,  softness  and  lenity.  If  any  thing  shall  chance  to  be  spoken 
uncomely,  let  one  bear  another's  frailty.  He  that  is  faulty,  let  him 
rather  amend,  than  defend  that  which  he  hath  spoken  amiss,  lest  he  fall 
by  contention  from  a  foolish  error  into  an  obstinate  heresy." 

How  have  the  separations  and  heresies  multiplied  since  then?  the 
Episcopalian  and  the  Presbyterian,  and  the  several  sorts  of  Indepen- 
dents, all  find  some  heresy  in  each  other:  do  they  not  all  then  teach  the 
necessity  of  unity,  and  the  necessity  of  belonging  to  the  true  Church, 
and  of  holding  the  true  doctrine?  And  does  not  each  of  them  assert 
that  his  is  that  Church  and  that  doctrine?  And  what  more  does  the 
Catholic  ?  Why  then  impute  to  us  as  a  crime,  what  in  themselves  is  con- 
sidered a  religious  duty?    We  believe  that  no  man  will  be  saved  who 


438  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

does  not  exert  himself  and  use  every  opportunity  which  God  affords 
him,  to  learn  what  God  has  taught  that  he  may  believe  it ;  to  learn  what 
God  commands,  that  he  may  fulfil  it ;  we  believe  that  Christ  gave  to  the 
Apostles  those  doctrines  and  those  precepts  to  be  by  them  transmitted 
to  the  latest  generations  through  their  successors  in  the  ministry;  that 
all  were  to  hold  together  in  unity,  receiving  and  preserving  this  testi- 
mony. Our  succession  is  acknowledged,  we  say  the  truth  has  been  pre- 
served together  with  that  succession:  they  have  charged  our  body  with 
having  substituted  damnable  error  for  pure  truth,  and  formed  new 
societies:  each  society  claims  exclusively  to  be  that  which  holds  God's 
truth.     I  shall  examine  a  few  more  of  them. 

Yours,  and  so  forth,  b.  c. 

LETTER  XXIX 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Mar.  26,  1827. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends, — I  stated  at  the  outset  that  I  would  enter  at  some 
length  upon  the  topic  of  exclusive  salvation.  I  shall  in  this  letter  con- 
tinue the  investigation.  Allow  me  to  remind  you  of  the  object  I  seek 
to  attain.  I  desire  not  to  set  you  above  your  Protestant  competitors, 
to  make  you  look  down  upon  them  as  bigoted,  illiberal,  or  ill-disposed; 
I  desire  not  to  make  wider  those  breaches  between  the  Christian  denom- 
inations which  are  already  too  many  and  too  large ;  I  desire  not  to  hurt 
the  feelings  of  our  fellow-citizens,  who  may  not  be  pleased  at  reading 
the  exhibition  of  their  own  tenets,  as  given  in  their  own  books ;  I  desire 
not  to  create,  to  excite,  or  to  continue  unpleasant  altercations.  My 
object  is  two-fold:  first  to  shew  the  incorrectness  of  White's  statement 
"that  the  doctrine  of  exclusive  salvation  in  our  Church  was  the  obstacle 
to  mutual  benevolence  and  perfect  community  of  political  privileges, 
and  that  if  we  cast  it  away,  all  liberal  men  would  give  us  the  right  hand 
of  fellowship;"  and  next  to  teach  a  little  moderation  to  those  persons 
who  so  unsparingly  abuse  us  for  what  they  call  a  blemish,  which  is 
found  in  every  one  of  themselves.  My  object  is  to  endeavor  to  repress 
the  unmeasured  contumely  of  ourselves  and  of  our  religion  by  persons 
who  do  not  know  their  own.  And  if  I  can  effect  this,  I  shall  have  done 
more  to  establish  charity,  harmony  and  good  will  between  Catholics  and 
Protestants,  than  has  been  done  for  some  time.  I  do  avow  that  I  am 
most  anxious  to  attain  this  object ;  but  I  know  that  it  is  not  to  be  attained 
without  convincing  persons,  who  have  been  too  long  permitted  to  indulge 
the  notion  that  they  were  our  superiors  in  liberality  and  charity,  that 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO   WHITE  439 

they  have  been  under  an  egregious  mistake.  My  task  is  very  difficult, 
and  probably  I  shall  not  succeed;  but  if  I  fail  I  shall  have  at  least  the 
consolation  of  knowing  that  I  have  marked  out  the  path  and  been  the 
pioneer  to  some  more  fortunate  follower. 

I  now  proceed  to  examine  the  doctrine  of  the  Baptist  Church  upon 
exclusive  salvation;  I  shall  quote  from  the  second  Charleston  edition, 
printed  by  J.  Hoff,  No.  117  Broad  street,  for  the  Charleston  Baptist 
Association,  of  A  Confession  of  Faith,  put  forth  hy  the  elders  and 
irethren  of  many  congregations  of  Christians  (baptized  upon  profession 
of  their  faith)  in  London  and  the  country,  adopted  hy  the  Baptist  Asso- 
ciation of  Philadelphia,  September  25,  1742,  and  by  the  Charleston  in 
1767.  The  preface  states  that  the  Confession  was  first  put  forth  about 
the  year  1643,  by  seven  congregations  then  gathered  in  London,  in  order 
to  correct  mistakes  as  to  the  tenets  of  the  societies;  when  copies  of  this 
became  scarce,  the  members  finding  in  their  body  a  general  agreement 
upon  most  topics  with  the  Westminster  Confession,  adopted  its  plan  and 
method,  and  in  most  instances,  its  very  expressions:  hence  I  may  gen- 
erally state  that  their  doctrine  of  exclusive  salvation  is  equally  illiberal 
as  is  that  of  the  Westminster  Confession :  there  is,  however  some  mitiga- 
tion of  expression  as  regards  papists;  for  instance,  in  chapter  xxvi  "Of 
Marriage, ' '  the  article  3  is  the  following : 

"3.  It  is  lawful  for  all  sorts  of  people  to  marry,  who  are  able 
with  judgment  to  give  their  consent;  yet  it  is  the  duty  of  Christians  to 
marry  in  the  Lord ;  and  therefore  such  as  profess  the  true  religion  should 
not  marry  with  infidels,  or  idolators;  neither  should  such  as  are  godly 
be  unequally  yoked,  by  marrying  with  such  as  are  wicked  in  their  life, 
or  maintain  damnable  heresy. ' ' 

Here  we  are  not  ranked  with  other  idolators,  but  we  find  a  distinc- 
tion made  between  those  who  hold  the  true  religion  and  infidels,  idol- 
ators, or  they  who  maintain  damnable  heresy:  of  course  a  damnable 
heresy  excludes  from  salvation,  so  does  infidelity  and  so  does  idolatry. 
Therefore  the  Baptist  Church  teaches  the  doctrine  of  exclusive  salva- 
tion. 

There  is  also  in  this  Confession  a  very  serious  difference  from  the 
Westminster  Confession  upon  the  doctrine  of  predestination:  the  Bap- 
tist is  far  a  milder  doctrine  upon  this  head,  and  approaches  much 
nearer  to  the  Catholic  belief :  still  we  are  told  in  chapter  xxvii  ' '  Of  the 
Church,"  that  the  invisible  Church  consists  of  the  elect.  The  second 
article,  page  54,  is  the  following: 

"2.  All  persons,  throughout  the  world,  professing  the  faith  of  the 
Gospel,  and  obedience  unto   God,   by   Christ,   according   unto  it,  -not 


440  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

destroying  their  own  profession  by  any  errors,  everting  the  foundation, 
or  unholiness  of  conversation,  are  and  may  be  called  visible  saints ;  and 
of  such  ought  all  particular  congregations  to  be  constituted." 

In  the  next  article  we  are  told  that  there  is  a  Church  of  believers 
and  a  synagogue  of  unbelievers. 

"3.  The  purest  Churches  under  heaven  are  subject  to  mixture 
and  error;  and  some  have  so  degenerated  as  to  become  no  Churches  of 
Christ,  but  Synagogues  of  Satan;  nevertheless  Christ  always  hath  had, 
and  ever  shall  have,  a  kingdom  in  this  world,  to  the  end  thereof,  of 
such  as  believe  in  him,  and  make  profession  of  his  name." 

The  fourth  article  is  by  no  means  delicate  in  the  denunciation  of 
that  Synagogue  of  Satan,  at  the  head  of  which  is  to  be  found  the  Pope. 

"4.  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  the  head  of  the  Church,  in  whom, 
by  the  appointment  of  the  Father,  all  power  for  the  calling,  institution, 
order  or  government  of  the  Church,  is  invested  in  a  supreme  and  sov- 
ereign manner,  neither  can  the  Pope  of  Rome  in  any  sense  be  head 
thereof,  but  is  Antichrist,  that  man  of  sin,  and  son  of  perdition,  that 
exalteth  himself  in  the  Church  against  Christ,  and  all  that  is  called 
God;  whom  the  Lord  shall  destroy  with  the  brightness  of  his  coming." 

Two  conclusions  are  now  evidently  established,  viz.  that  the  main- 
taining of  some  errors  and  heresies  are  sufficient  to  exclude  from  sal- 
vation, and  next,  that  the  Pope  is  Antichrist  and  our  Church  a  Syna- 
gogue of  Satan.  This  is  indeed  very  charitable  and  complimentary  and 
kind. 

But  let  us  go  a  little  farther  through  the  document,  lest  it  should 
be  asserted  that  we  did  not  take  a  sufficiently  extensive  view.  In  page 
22,  chapter  vii,  "Of  God's  Covenant,"  article  two,  is  the  following: 

"2.  Moreover,  man  having  brought  himself  under  the  curse  of  the 
law  by  his  fall,  it  pleased  the  Lord  to  make  a  Covenant  of  Grace,  wherein 
he  freely  offereth  unto  sinners  life  and  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ,  requir- 
ing faith  in  him,  that  they  may  be  saved;  and  promising  to  give  unto 
all  those  that  are  ordained  unto  eternal  life,  his  Holy  Spirit,  to  make 
them  willing,  and  able  to  believe." 

The  Covenant  here  is  faith,  by  aid  of  which  man  is  saved.  We 
shall  see  the  same  doctrine  in  article  3: 

"This  Covenant  is  revealed  in  the  Gospel;  and  was  first  of  all  to 
Adam  in  the  promise  of  salvation  by  the  seed  of  the  woman,  and  after- 
wards by  farther  steps,  until  the  full  discovery  thereof  was  completed 
in  the  New  Testament;  and  it  is  found  in  that  eternal  covenant  trans- 
action, that  was  between  the  Father  and  the  Son  about  the  redemption 
of  the  elect ;  and  it  is  alone  by  the  grace  of  this  Covenant,  that  all  of 


two  CALUMNIES    OF  J.   BLANCO   WHITE  441 

the  posterity  of  fallen  Adam,  that  ever  were  saved,  did  obtain  life  and  a 
blessed  immortality ;  man  being  now  utterly  incapable  of  acceptance  with 
God  upon  those  terms  on  which  Adam  stood  in  his  state  of  innocency. " 

The  next  article  of  chapter  viii,  page  26,  shows  how  faith  is  com- 
municated to  the  elect. 

"8.  To  all  those  for  whom  Christ  hath  obtained  eternal  redemption, 
he  doth  certainly  and  effectually  apply,  and  communicate  the  same; 
making  intercession  for  them;  uniting  them  to  himself  by  his  Spirit; 
revealing  unto  them,  in  and  by  the  word,  the  mystery  of  salvation; 
persuading  them  to  believe,  and  obey;  governing  their  hearts  by  his 
word  and  spirit,  and  overcoming  all  their  enemies  by  his  almighty  power 
and  wisdom;  in  such  manner  and  ways  as  are  most  consonant  to  his 
wonderful  and  unsearchable  dispensation;  and  all  of  free  and  absolute 
grace,  without  any  condition  foreseen  in  them,  to  procure  it." 

In  page  29,  we  find  in  chapter  x,  "Of  Effectual  Calling,"  that 
those  in  other  modes  of  belief,  howsoever  moral  or  just,  cannot  be  saved 
unless  they  become  Christians,  and  of  course  not  Roman  Catholics,  who 
adhere  to  Antichrist. 

"4.  Others  not  elected,  although  they  may  be  called  by  the  min- 
istry of  the  word,  and  may  have  some  common  operations  of  the  spirit; 
yet,  not  being  effectually  drawn  by  the  Father,  they  neither  will,  nor 
can  truly  come  to  Christ ;  and  therefore  cannot  be  saved ;  much  less  can 
men  that  receive  not  the  Christian  religion  be  saved,  be  they  never  so 
diligent  to  frame  their  lives  according  to  the  light  of  nature,  and  the  law 
of  that  religion  they  do  profess. ' ' 

In  chapter  xi,  "Of  Justification,"  article  2,  we  are  justified  by  faith 
alone. 

"2.  Fa^th,  thus  receiving  and  resting  on  Christ  and  his  righteous- 
ness, is  the  alone  instrument  of  justification;  yet  it  is  not  alone  in  the 
person  justified,  but  is  ever  accompanied  with  all  other  saving  graces, 
and  is  no  dead  faith,  but  worketh  by  love. ' ' 

The  same  is  repeated  in  the  5th  article :  but  to  know  the  nature  of 
that  faith,  I  shall  give  you  the  articles,  2  and  3,  of  chapter  xiv,  "Of 
Saving  Faith." 

"2.  By  this  faith,  a  Christian  believeth  to  be  true  whatsoever  is 
revealed  in  the  word,  on  the  authority  of  God  himself;  and  also  appre- 
hendeth  an  excellency  therein  above  all  other  writings;  and  all  things 
in  the  world;  as  it  bears  forth  the  glory  of  God  in  his  attributes,  the 
excellency  of  Christ  in  his  nature  and  offices,  and  the  power  and  fulness 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  his  working  and  operations;  and  so  is  enabled 
to  cast  his  soul  upon  the  truth  thus  believed,  and  also  acteth  differently 


442  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

upon  that  which  each  particular  passage  thereof  eontaineth;  yielding 
obedience  to  the  commands,  trembling  at  the  threatenings,  and  embrac- 
ing the  promises  of  God,  for  this  life,  and  that  which  is  to  come :  but 
the  principal  acts  of  saving  faith,  have  immediate  relation  to  Christ, 
accepting,  receiving,  and  resting  upon  him  alone,  for  justification,  sanc- 
tification,  and  eternal  life,  by  virtue  of  the  covenant  of  grace. 

"3.  This  faith,  although  it  be  different  in  degrees,  and  may  be 
weak,  or  strong,  yet  it  is  in  the  least  degree  of  it,  different  in  the  kind, 
or  nature  of  it,  (as  is  all  other  saving  grace)  from  the  faith  and  common 
grace  of  temporary  believers;  and  therefore,  though  it  may  be  many 
times  assailed  and  weakened,  yet  it  gets  the  victory,  growing  up  in 
many,  to  the  attainment  of  a  full  assurance  through  Christ,  who  is  both 
the  author  and  finisher  of  our  faith. ' ' 

We  have  now  clearly  established  the  fact;  that  the  doctrine  of 
exclusive  salvation,  "without  this  our  true  faith,  no  person  can  be 
saved, "  is  as  much  a  doctrine  of  the  Baptist  as  it  is  of  the  other  Churches 
which  I  have  brought  in  review  before  you. 

Where  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  believes  that  they  who  die 
guilty  of  venial  sin  alone,  will  go  only  to  temporary  suffering,  the  Bap- 
tist Church  teaches  that  they  will  be  damned  perpetually,  page  36, 
chapter  xv,  "On  Repentance  unto  Life  and  Salvation,  article  5. 

"5.  Such  is  the  provision  which  God  hath  made  through  Christ 
in  the  covenant  of  grace,  for  the  preservation  of  believers  unto  salva- 
tion, that  although  there  is  no  sin  so  small  but  it  deserves  damnation; 
yet  there  is  no  sin  so  great  that  it  shall  bring  damnation  on  them  that 
repent;  which  makes  the  constant  preaching  of  repentance  necessary." 

In  page  38,  we  are  taught  in  chapter  xvi,  ' '  On  good  Works, ' '  article 
7,  that  "all  the  works  of  persons  who  have  not  Baptist  faith,  are  sins." 

"7.  Works  done  by  unregenerate  men,  although  for  the  matter  of 
them  they  may  be  things  which  God  commands  and  of  good  use,  both  to 
themselves  and  others ;  yet  because  they  proceed  not  from  a  heart  puri- 
fied by  faith,  nor  are  done  in  a  right  manner  according  to  the  word, 
nor  to  a  right  end,  the  glory  of  God,  they  are  sinful  and  cannot  please 
God,  nor  make  a  man  meet  to  receive  grace  from  God:  and  yet  their 
neglect  of  them  is  more  sinful  and  displeasing  to  God." 

This  really  is  a  sad  dilemma  for  an  unfortunate  man.  "If  you 
relieve  that  distressed  man  you  commit  a  sin,  if  you  neglect  it  you  com- 
mit a  most  grievous  offence. ' ' 

I  shall  here  close  for  the  present  this  tedious  exhibition  with  the 
doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  of  the  United  States  of  America, 
as  given  in  its  constitution,  printed  and  sold  by  George  Forman,  New 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO    WHITE  443 


York,  1815.     I  shewed  in  a  former  letter  that  in  the  xxxviiith  of  its 
Confession  of  Faith  it  was  declared  that  out  of  the  holy  congregation 
of  the  true  Church  there  is  no  salvation.     I  give  here  now  chapter  xxix, 
from  page  32 : 
' '  Of  the  marks  of  the  true  Church,  and  wherein  she  differs  from  the  false 

Church. 

"We  believe  that  we  ought  diligently  and  circumspectly  to  discern 
from  the  word  of  God,  which  is  the  true  Church ;  since  all  sects  which 
are  in  the  world  assume  to  themselves  the  name  of  the  Church.  But  we 
speak  not  here  of  hypocrites,  who  are  mixed  in  the  Church  with  the  good, 
yet  are  not  of  the  Church,  though  externally  in  it :  but  we  say  that  thii 
body  and  communion  of  the  true  church  must  be  distinguished  from 
all  sects,  who  call  themselves  the  Church.  The  marks,  by  which  the  true 
Church  is  known,  are  these :  if  the  pure  doctrine  of  the  gospel  is  preached 
therein;  if  she  maintains  the  pure  administration  of  the  sacraments  as 
instituted  by  Christ;  if  Church  discipline  is  exercised  in  punishing  of 
sin:  in  short,  if  all  things  are  managed  according  to  the  pure  word  of 
God,  all  things  contrary  thereto  rejected;  and  Jesus  Christ  acknowledged 
as  the  only  Head  of  the  Church.  Hence  the  true  Church  may  certainly 
be  known ;  from  which  no  man  has  a  right  to  separate  himself.  With 
respect  to  those  who  are  members  of  the  Church,  they  may  be  known 
by  the  marks  of  christians,  namely,  by  faith;  and  when  they  have  re- 
ceived Jesus  Christ  the  only  Saviour,  avoid  sin,  follow  after  righteous- 
ness, love  the  true  God  and  their  neighbor,  neither  turn  aside  to  the 
right  or  left,  and  crucify  the  flesh  with  the  works  thereof.  But  this 
is  not  to  be  understood,  as  if  there  did  not  remain  in  them  great  infirmi- 
ties ;  but  they  fight  against  them  through  the  spirit,  all  the  days  of  their 
life,  continually  taking  their  refuge  to  the  blood,  death,  passion,  and 
obedience  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  whom  they  have  remission  oi^ 
sins,  through  faith  in  him.  As  for  the  false  Church,  she  ascribes  more 
power  and  authority  to  herself  and  her  ordinances,  than  to  the  M^ord  of 
God,  and  will  not  submit  herself  to  the  yoke  of  Christ.  Neither  does 
she  administer  the  sacraments  as  appointed  by  Christ  in  his  word,  but 
adds  to,  and  takes  from  them,  as  she  thinks  proper ;  she  relieth  more  upon 
men  than  upon  Christ ;  and  persecutes  those,  who  live  holily  according 
to  the  word  of  God,  and  rebuke  her  for  her  errors,  covetousness,  and 
idolatry.  These  two  Churches  are  easily  known  and  distinguished  from 
each  other. ' ' 

In  this  we  not  only  have  exclusive  salvation,  for  we  are  told  that 
the  true  Church  is  distinguished  from  all  the  sects  which  assume  the 
name  of  the  Church,  that  no  man  has  a  right  to  separate  himself  from 


444  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

it,  that  its  members  are  known  by  faith,  and  so  forth.  The  calumnies 
which  are  cast  upon  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  are  given  as  her  char- 
acteristics, and  she  is  designed  as  "  a  false  church, "  ' '  a  persecutor  of  the 
saints,"  "having  errors,"  "being  idolatrous,"  and  "being  covetous." 
This  is  indeed  complimentary ! 

I  ask  any  person  who  has  had  the  patience  to  read  my  four  pre- 
ceeding  letters  and  this  present  one,  whether  it  is  not  as  extraordinary 
and  ridiculous  an  exhibition  as  he  has  ever  known,  to  find  a  number 
of  clergymen  of  Churches  professing  as  their  doctrine  those  tenets,  de- 
liberately charge  us  with  being  criminals  in  holding  that  God  has  made 
true  faith  a  requisite  for  salvation?  When  our  doctrine  upon  the  sub- 
ject is  compared  with  theirs  it  is  far  less  harsh,  and  much  milder  in  its 
import;  for  aught  that  I  know  they  may  imagine  the  Pope  to  be  An- 
tichrist, but  it  is  certainly  no  great  recommendation  to  their  doctrine 
that  it  is  more  harsh  and  uncharitable  than  that  which  is  taught  by 
Antichrist  himself,  and  received  by  the  synagogue  of  Satan,  as  we  are 
politely  and  charitably  said  to  be.  Do  these  gentlemen  really  believe 
Pope  Leo  XII  is  Antichrist  ?  Do  they  believe  sincerely  that  their  fellow- 
citizens  are  idolators  and  constitute  a  portion  of  the  synagogue  of  Satan  ? 
If  they  do  not,  why  keep  such  language  in  their  confessions  of  Faith? 
I  must  continue. 

Yours,  and  so  forth, 

B.  c. 


LETTER  XXX 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Apr.  2,  1827. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends, — I  shall  in  this  letter  endeavor  to  conclude  the  testi- 
mony of  doctrine  from  the  Protestant  Churches  upon  the  subject  of 
exclusive  salvation.  If  I  have  selected  some  and  omitted  others,  it  was 
not  from  any  predilection  or  dislike  on  my  part :  to  me  they  are  all  alike, 
they  equally  denounce  me  as  a  corrupter  of  the  pure  doctrine  of  Christ, 
and  a  member  of  the  Church  whose  errors  are  too  numerous  and  too 
gross  to  allow  their  fathers  to  remain  in  her  communion,  or  to  permit 
them  to  return  without  danger  of  eternal  ruin.  So  far  as  charity  is 
concerned  I  hold  the  individuals  of  those  several  Churches  upon  a  per- 
fect equality,  and  feel  convinced  that  it  is  my  religious  duty,  as  I  trust 
it  is  my  disposition  to  do  them  every  service  in  my  power,  and  to  meet 
them  in  all  the  relations  of  society  as  friends,  neighbors,  fellow-citizens, 
or  brethren  of  the  human  family.     It  would  be  too  tedious  to  examine 


two  CALUMNIES   OF  J.   BLANCO   WHITE  445 


the  doctrine  of  every  denomination,  but  it  was  necessary  to  select  a  few, 
and  in  making  the  selection,  I  have  as  far  as  I  knew,  taken  the  Churches 
to  which  those  gentlemen  belonged  who  so  zealously  aided  White  in  his 
charge  against  us.  As  those  gentlemen  charged  us  with  holding  a  doe- 
trine  which  made  our  very  benevolence  a  curse  and  rendered  us  unfit 
to  participate  in  an  equality  of  political  rights,  with  our  fellow-Chris- 
tians, I  thought  it  to  be  only  just  to  try  themselves  by  their  own  test. 
I  believe,  that  the  Methodist  doctrine  is  that  which  alone  of  the  assailants 
has  not  yet  been  exhibited.  Allow  me  now  to  dwell  for  a  short  time  upon 
their  Confession  of  Faith. 

The  Doctrines  and  Principles  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
the  twentieth  edition,  New  York,  published  hy  N.  Bangs  &  T.  Mason, 
for  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  J.  C.  Totten,  printer,  9,  Bowery, 
1820 — shall  be  my  text  book. 

It  is  very  obvious  to  all  who  know  any  thing  of  the  origin  of  our 
several  Protestant  denominations,  that  Methodism  was  originally  but  a 
regular  and  methodical  practice  of  the  religious  duties  of  the  Church  of 
Protestant  England,  but  in  process  of  time  it  has  come  to  be  a  separate 
denomination,  between  which  and  the  church  whence  it  emanated  there 
are  many  things  not  only  discrepant  but  contradictory :  not  only  things 
indifferent  or  upon  which  there  might  be  difference  without  breach  of 
communion:  but  upon  what  is  really,  and  [is]  known  to  be  essential. 
However,  we  must  necessarily  expect  to  find  in  many  instances  a  great 
similarity  of  doctrine.  Hence  as  we  know  that  the  Church  of  England 
and  the  American  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  hold  the  doctrine  of 
exclusive  salvation ;  it  must  be  also  held  by  the  Methodist  Church  unless 
it  has  been  specially  abandoned.  As  we  have  no  evidence  of  this  special 
abandonment,  we  must  be  of  opinion  that  it  continues  to  be  still  a  tenet 
of  the  society.  This,  though  a  good  presumptive  argument,  and  nearly 
conclusive  as  to  fact,  is  not  however  such  ground  as  I  should  be  willing 
to  rest  upon,  especially  in  a  case  like  the  present.  I  shall  therefore  use 
positive  proof. 

To  establish  my  position,  will  require  the  attainment  of  two  results : 
the  first,  that  according  to  the  Methodist  Church  doctrine,  without  faith 
there  is  no  salvation,  and  secondly,  that  this  faith  exists  only  in  those 
who  believe  the  doctrine  of  Christ.  I  shall  add  another,  viz.  that  Roman 
Catholics  have  not  that  doctrine,  and  it  will  follow  that  Roman  Catholics 
are  excluded  from  salvation. 

The  work  which  I  shall  use  contains  two  parts,  the  spiritual  and  the 
temporal :  section  ii,  of  the  first  part,  contains  the  ' '  Articles  of  Religion : ' ' 
they  are  generally  taken  from  those  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 


446  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

Article  v,  page  8,  corresponds  with  article  vi  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  and  is  in  the  following  words : 

"The  Holy  Scriptures  contain  all  things  necessary  to  salvation: 
so  that  whatsoever  is  not  read  therein,  nor  may  be  proved  thereby,  is 
not  to  be  required  of  any  man,  that  it  should  be  believed  as  an  article 
of  faith,  or  be  thought  requisite  or  necessary  to  salvation." 

The  only  difference  is  in  the  introducing  the  particle  The  at  the 
commencement  in  this,  and  omitting  the  particle  the  before  faith.  Hence 
it  is  clearly  implied  if  not  fully  declared;  that  the  belief  of  an  article 
of  faith  is  necessary  to  salvation.  In  page  10,  we  have  the  following 
article  VIII  ''Of  Free  Will." 

* '  The  condition  of  man  after  the  fall  of  Adam  is  such,  that  he  can- 
not turn  and  prepare  himself,  by  his  own  natural  strength  and  works, 
to  faith,  and  calling  upon  God ;  Wherefore  we  have  no  power  to  do  good 
works,  pleasant  and  acceptable  to  God,  without  the  grace  of  God  by 
Christ  preventing  us,  that  we  may  have  a  good  will,  and  working  with 
us,  when  we  have  that  good  will. ' ' 

This  is  exactly  the  same  as  article  x  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  save  that  it  omits  the  word  good  before  "works"  where  it  first 
occurs,  and  which  word  good  is  in  the  article  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church.  From  this  article  we  are  necessarily  led  to  infer  that  our  good 
works  depend  upon  faith,  or  are  identified  therewith,  and  that  we  can- 
not obtain  this  faith,  or  do  those  works  without  the  aid  of  God's  grace; 
indeed  the  plain  meaning  is  that  grace  produces  faith,  and  faith  produces 
the  works.  So  that  we  have  no  good  work  without  faith  as  its  foundation 
— hence  it  is  obvious  that  as  we  cannot  be  saved  without  faith  or  good 
works,  or  both,  he  who  has  not  faith  cannot  be  saved.  The  next  article 
removes  all  doubt  from  the  question,  article  ix,  page  11  "Of  the  Justifi- 
cation of  Man. ' ' 

"We  are  accounted  righteous  before  God,  only  for  the  merit  of  our 
Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  by  faith,  and  not  for  our  own  works  of 
deserving; — Wherefore,  that  we  are  justified  by  faith  only  is  a  most 
whosesome  doctrine  and  very  full  of  comfort." 

This  is  word  for  word  so  far  as  it  has  reference  to  the  xith  article 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church;  the  latter  refers  to  the  book  of 
Homilies  for  an  explanation  of  the  manner  in  which  we  are  justified  by 
faith  only,  and  how  it  is  wholesome  and  comfortable.  My  conclusion  is, 
the  Methodist  Church  requires  faith  for  justification,  hence  either  a 
person  might  be  saved  without  being  justified,  or  he  cannot  be  saved 
without  having  faith :  our  Methodist  friends  are  far  from  asserting  that 
an  unjustified  man  can  be  saved,  and  they  necessarily  teach  what  we  have 


two  CALUMNIES   OF   J.   BLANCO   WHITE  447 

previously  seen  to  be  their  doctrine,  that  only  they  who  have  faith  will 
be  saved :  and  this  is  the  doctrine  of  exclusive  salvation  in  its  fullest  ex- 
tent and  acceptation.  We  shall  see  this  further  confirmed  in  the  tenth 
article  "Of  Good  Works." 

"Although  good  works,  which  are  the  fruits  of  faith,  and  follow 
after  justification,  cannot  put  away  our  sins,  and  endure  the  severity  of 
God's  judgments:  yet  are  they  pleasing  and  acceptable  to  God  in  Christ, 
and  spring  out  of  a  true  and  lively  faith,  insomuch  that  by  them  a 
lively  faith  may  be  evidently  known,  as  a  tree  is  discerned  by  its  fruit." 

The  variance  between  this  and  the  article  xii  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  consists  in  although  being  substituted  for  albeit,  the  word 
judgment  being  made  plural,  and  omitting  the  word  necessarily  after 
spring  out.  The  article  in  each  ease  exhibits  to  us  good  works  as  the 
consequence  of  faith :  and  in  each  case  shows  the  necessity  of  faith  for 
salvation.  There  is  however  a  wide  difference  between  the  substantial 
doctrine  in  each,  for  the  Methodist  does  not  assert  in  this  article  that  good 
works  are  a  necessary  consequence  of  faith :  he  here  admits  the  possibility 
of  the  existence  of  faith  without  being  necessarily  productive,  whereas 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  asserts  that  the  works  must  necessarily 
spring  out  from  faith  wherever  it  does  exist;  they  both  agree  that  the 
exhibition  of  good  works  is  an  evidence  of  the  existence  of  faith,  or  belief, 
without  which  there  is  no  justification.  We  next  come  to  page  12,  article 
xiii  "Of  the  Church." 

"The  visibile  Church  of  Christ  is  a  congregation  of  faithful  men, 
in  which  the  pure  word  of  God  is  preached,  and  the  sacraments  duly 
administered  according  to  Christ's  ordinance,  in  all  those  things  that  of 
necessity  are  requisite  to  the  sam?." 

This  article  is  alike  in  both  churches,  and  an  essential  mark  of  the 
Church  is  that  the  pure  word  of  God  is  preached  therein.  They  who 
will  not  believe  these  doctrines  cannot  have  faith,  cannot  be  in  that  true 
Church,  cannot  be  justified,  cannot  be  saved.  For  my  own  part  I  can 
see  no  ground  for  saying  that  any  Church  or  religious  society  that  I  ever 
heard  or  read  of,  is  not  equally  chargeable  as  is  ours  with  holding  this 
doctrine.  I  shall  now  proceed  to  examine  a  few  of  the  code  passages 
in  which  the  Protestant  Episcopal  and  Methodist  Churches  apply  the 
principle  specially  to  our  Church. 

In  page  13,  article  xiv:  "Of  Purgatory." 

"The  Romish  doctrine  concerning  purgatory,  pardon,  worshipping, 
and  adoration,  as  well  of  images  as  of  relics,  and  also  invocation  of 
saints,  is  a  fond  thing,  vainly  invented,  and  grounded  upon  no  warrant 
of  Scripture,  but  repugnant  to  the  word  of  God. ' ' 


448  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

This  is  also  the  article  xii  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  We 
are  here  distinctly  ejected  from  the  Church,  since  we  teach  what  is  re- 
pugnant to  the  word  of  God,  consequently  not  the  pure  word  of  God, 
but  that  which  is  repugnant  thereto,  and  of  course  not  grounded  upon 
the  warrant  of  Scripture.  The  next  article  charges  us  with  what  is  also 
said  to  be  repugnant  to  the  word  of  God,  article  xiv  which  is  article 
xxiv  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  ' '  Of  speaking  in  the  congrega- 
tion in  such  a  tongue  as  the  People  understand. ' ' 

' '  It  is  a  thing  plainly  repugnant  to  the  word  of  God,  and  the  custom 
of  the  primitive  Church,  to  have  public  prayer  in  the  Church,  or  to  min- 
ister the  sacraments,  in  a  tongue  not  understood  by  the  people. ' ' 

Will  any  person  w^ho  will  peruse  this  evidence  for  a  moment  hesi- 
tate to  say  that  we  are  treated  not  only  very  unceremoniously,  but  very 
illiberally,  by  gentlemen  whose  first  principle  is,  that  neither  we  nor 
they  can  know  with  infallible  certainty  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  pas- 
sages of  the  Bible,  and  that  each  person  is  to  seek  for  knowledge  from 
God  and  not  to  depend  upon  the  testimony  of  any  Church,  because  each 
Church  is  liable  to  err  ? 

In  page  14,  we  are  charged  with  corrupt  following  of  the  Apostles ; 
this  is  in  article  xvi  and  corresponds  with  article  xxv  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church.  I  really  do  not  understand  what  the  gentlemen  mean, 
unless  it  be  what  I  cannot  believe  they  intended,  that  they  charge  the 
Apostles  with  corruption,  and  consequently  that  we  are  criminal  in  fol- 
lowing them.  But  in  page  15,  paragraph  the  second  of  article  xviii, 
"Of  the  Lord's  Supper,"  there  is  another  specific  opposition  to  God's 
pure  doctrine  charged  upon  us. 

"  Transubstantiation,  or  the  change  of  the  substance  of  bread  and 
wine  in  the  Supper  of  our  Lord,  cannot  be  proved  by  Holy  Writ,  but  is 
repugnant  to  the  plain  words  of  Scripture,  overthroweth  the  nature  of 
a  sacrament,  and  hath  given  occasion  to  many  superstitions. ' ' 

This  corresponds  to  article  xxviii  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church.  Hitherto  we  were  charged  with  opposing  the  word  of  God, 
and  being  superstitious.  Now  the  sounds  begin  to  grow  more  portentous : 
our  Presbyterian,  Baptist,  and  other  friends,  not  content  with  this, 
which  in  all  conscience  was  severe  enough,  add  ' '  is  repugnant  to  common 
sense  and  reason,  and  hath  been  and  is  the  cause  of  gross  idolatries." 
Poor,  senseless.  Popish  Idiots,  and  gross  Idolators!  Thank  you  gentle- 
men !  It  becomes  you  to  lecture  us  and  to  rebuke  us  for  illiberality.  Let 
us,  however,  hear  a  little  more  to  soothe  our  pride  and  excite  our  vanity. 
In  page  16,  article  xix,  the  Methodist  Church  has,  "Of  both  kinds." 

* '  The  cup  of  the  Lord  is  not  to  be  denied  to  the  lay-people :  for  both 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO    WHITE  449 

the  parts  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  by  Christ's  ordinance  and  commandment, 
ought  to  be  administered  to  all  Christians  alike. ' ' 

The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  has  the  word  sacrament  for  sup- 
per. The  declaration  herein  contained  is  that  communion  under  one 
kind  is  contrary  to  the  ordinance  and  commandment  of  Christ ;  of  course 
then  we  are  charged  with  this  criminality.  In  the  same  page,  article 
XX  agrees  word  for  word  with  article  xxvi  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  except  that  the  verbs  which  I  have  put  in  italics  are  in  the  past 
tense  there ;  here  they  are  in  the  present,  and  the  fable  and  deceit  here, 
are  there  in  the  plural :  "Of  the  one  oblation  of  Christ,  finished  upon 
the  Cross." 

"The  offering  of  Christ  once  made,  is  that  perfect  redemption, 
propitiation,  and  satisfaction  for  all  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  both 
original  and  actual ;  and  there  is  none  other  satisfaction  for  sin  but  that 
alone.  Wherefore  the  sacrifice  of  masses,  in  which  it  is  commonly  said, 
that  the  Priest  doth  offer  Christ  for  the  quick  and  the  dead,  to  have  re- 
mission of  pain  or  guilt,  is  a  Nasphemous  fahle  and  dangerous  deceit." 

Our  friends  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  at  the  conclusion  of 
their  xxxvth  article,  have  this  passage  for  our  benefit : 

"Therefore  we  reject  all  mixtures  and  damnable  inventions  which 
men  have  added  unto,  or  blended  with  the  sacraments. ' ' 

And  in  the  Catechism  for  the  xxx  Lord's  Day,  page  58,  Q.  80,  we 
are  further  complimented : 

"Q.  80.  What  difference  is  there  between  the  Lord's  Supper  and 
the  Popish  Mass  ? 

"A.  The  Lord's  Supper  testifies  to  us,  that  we  have  a  full  pardon 
of  all  sin  by  the  only  sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  he  himself  has  once 
accomplished  on  the  cross ;  and,  that  we,  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  ingrafted 
into  Christ,  who,  according  to  the  human  nature,  is  now  not  on  earth, 
but  in  heaven,  at  the  right  hand  of  God  his  Father,  and  will  there  be 
worshipped  by  us ;  hut  the  mass  teacheth  that  the  living  and  dead  have 
not  the  pardon  of  sins  through  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  unless  Christ  is 
also  daily  offered  for  them  hy  the  Priests;  and  further,  that  Christ  is 
bodily  under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine,  and  therefore  is  to  be  wor- 
shipped in  them ;  so  that  the  mass  at  bottom,  is  nothing  else  than  a  denial 
of  the  one  sacrifice  and  sufferings  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  an  accursed  idol- 
atry." 

The  good  gentlemen  will  please  to  allow  me  to  know  what  the  mass 
is ;  and  with  that  knowledge  I  beg  leave  to  inform  them  that  I  do  not  be- 
lieve even  White  himself  would  have  been  so  barefaced  as  to  assert  that 
the  propositions  which  I  have  marked  in  italics  in  the  answer  which  they 


450  CONTROVEKSY  Vol. 

teach  their  children  are  true.  Roman  Catholics  do  not  teach  either  of 
those  two  propositions,  and  the  mass  teaches  nothing.  Our  Baptist 
brethren,  page  61,  kindly  join  our  Presbyterian  brethren  in  the  following 
assertion,  chapter  xxix,  article  2 : 

' '  So  that  Popish  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  as  they  call  it,  is  most  abomin- 
ably injurious  to  Christ's  own  and  only  sacrifice,  the  alone  propitiation 
for  the  sins  of  the  elect. ' ' 

The  Methodist,  in  page  45,  prescribing  the  trial  for  candidates  for 
the  ministry,  in  answer  2,  places  a  requisite  condition  "a  just  conception 
of  salvation  by  faith,"  and  at  an  ordination  of  an  elder,  page  141,  re- 
quires him  to  be  "  ready  with  faithful  diligence  to  banish  and  drive  away 
all  erronneous  and  strange  doctrines  contrary  to  God 's  word ; ' '  and  in 
ordaining  a  Bishop,  page  154,  requires  of  him,  in  addition,  to  promise 
"both  privately  and  openly  to  call  upon  and  encourage  others  to  the 
same." 

I  have  been  tedious,  but  upon  this  topic  I  have  done  for  the  present. 
I  believe  then,  it  must  appear  extraordinary  that  clergymen  of  those 
several  Churches  should  have  combined  to  unite  with  the  writer  of  the 
Evidence  in  the  following  paragraph : 

"If  your  leaders,  whom  it  would  be  uncharitable  to  suspect  of  the 
latter  feeling,  have  so  far  receded  from  the  Roman  creed  as  to  allow  us 
the  common  privileges  of  Christianity,  and  can  conscientiously  swear^ 
to  protect  and  encourage  the  interests  of  the  Church  of  England,  let 
them,  in  the  name  of  truth,  speak  openly  before  the  world,  and  be  the 
first  to  remove  that  obstacle  to  mutual  benevolence,  and  perfect  commun- 
ity of  political  privileges — the  doctrine  of  exclusive  salvation  in  your 
Church.  Cancel  but  that  one  article  in  your  creed,  and  all  liberal  men 
in  Europe  will  offer  you  the  right  hand  of  fellowship.  Your  doctrines 
concern  yourselves ;  this  endangers  the  peace  and  freedom  of  every  man 
living,  and  that  in  proportion  to  your  goodness:  it  makes  your  very 
benevolence  a  curse." 

My  friends,  we  have  too  long  suffered  under  injuries  and  unfounded 
imputations :  we  have  been  accustomed  to  hear  ourselves  vilified  as  the 
only  tolerant  Church  in  Christendom,  as  the  only  Church  which  taught 
the  doctrine  of  exclusive  salvation  ^  we  ought  not  to  permit  this  any  longer 
— without  any  diminution  of  charity,  without  any  violation  of  friend- 
ship, without  any  loss  of  affection  for  our  brethren  of  other  Churches, 
let  us  make  them  feel  that  we  are  at  least  as  liberal  as  any  of  them.  I 
am  fully  aw^are  that  several  who  hail  under  the  names  of  those  Churches 
will  answer,  that  they  do  not  believe  all  the  doctrines  which  those 
Churches  teach.     But  surely  the  clergy  will  not  say  so ;  they  at  all  events 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO   WHITE  451 

believe  what  they  profess  to  teach,  and  of  course  they  believe  this  doc- 
trine. When  the  other  gentlemen  shall  have  determined  upon  what  they 
will  please  to  believe,  and  give  us  an  exhibition  of  their  tenets,  we  shall 
be  able  to  make  the  case  as  plain  in  their  regard  provided  they  go  but 
one  line  beyond  this  position.  Every  person,  good  and  bad,  that  ever 
was  created  will  be  saved,  without  any  endurance  of  punishment:  and 
truth  and  error  are  equally  acceptable  to  God :  neither  does  he  take  into 
account  whether  a  person  has  been  indifferent  to  the  discovery  of  truth, 
or  engaged  in  its  investigation,  nor  whether  he  has  made  it  the  rule  of 
his  conduct,  or  been  careless  as  to  what  rule  he  observed.  The  least  ad- 
vance beyond  this  line  is  embracing  a  doctrine  of  exclusive  salvation. 
I  shall  proceed  to  examine  the  other  portions  of  the  Evidence. 
Yours,  and  so  forth, 

B.  c. 

LETTER  XXXI 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Apr.  9,  1827. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends, — I  have,  I  trust,  fully  established  the  following  points : 
viz.  1.  That  a  doctrine  of  exclusive  salvation  is  taught  by  every  re- 
ligious society.  2.  That  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  did  not  drive 
out  the  Protestant  sectaries,  because  of  their  refusal  to  abandon  the  doc- 
trines which  their  predecessors  had  given  them,  as  derived  from  the 
Apostles.  3.  That  the  first  Protestants  went  out  from  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic Church,  because  she  would  not  abandon  the  doctrines  which  she  had 
received  from  the  Apostles  through  their  successors,  and  which  Roman 
Catholics  also  believed  to  be  in  accordance  with  the  Scriptures.  4.  That 
the  persons  who  so  left  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  asserted  that  she 
erred  in  keeping  those  doctrines,  and  that  their  regard  for  the  salvation 
of  their  souls  and  the  purity  of  their  religion  obliged  them  to  leave  her 
communion.  5.  That  this  is  on  their  part  an  assertion  that  only  they 
who  reject  false  doctrine  and  adhere  to  the  pure  and  true  doctrine  can 
be  saved.  6.  That  they  have  separated  from  each  other  into  a  vast 
number  of  sects  and  divisions,  each  of  which  denounces  the  rest  as  er- 
roneous in  one  or  more  points  of  doctrine,  and  justifies  its  separation 
upon  the  ground  of  the  high  obligation  of  adhering  to  truth  and  reject- 
ing error.  7.  That  they  all  denounce  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  as 
bigoted  and  intolerant  and  tyrannical,  for  not  admitting  as  true,  a  prin- 
ciple whose  truth  they  all  deny,  viz.  that  it  is  a  matter  of  indifference 
in  the  sight  of  God  whether  a  person  adheres  to  religious  truth  or  to 


452  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

religious  error,  provided  he  is  a  good,  moral  man.  8.  That  whilst  they 
complain  of  being  styled  heretics  or  choosers  of  doctrines,  by  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  they  feel  themselves  justified  in  calling  her  a  corrupter 
of  God's  word,  the  false  Church,  a  lying  harlot,  the  synagogue  of  satan, 
the  scarlet  ....  of  Babylon ;  her  members  idolaters ;  her  clergy,  lying 
prophets,  wolves  in  sheep's  clothing,  imps  of  the  devil;  and  their  chief 
Bishop,  Antichrist,  the  man  of  sin,  the  son  of  perdition.  9.  That  this 
unbecoming  language  is  not  only  that  of  ages  gone  by,  but  that  of  the 
present  day;  not  that  which  is  used  in  a  moment  of  irritation,  but  in 
the  hours  of  deliberate  and  most  solemn  and  serious  reflection;  not  by 
the  rabble  drawcansirs,  who  seek  for  temporary  notice  and  a  daily  morsel, 
without  any  farther  hopes,  but  by  dignified  prelates,  learned  ministers, 
wise  elders,  provident  deacons,  and  grave  synods;  it  is  language  em- 
bodied in  the  awful  formularies  of  Faith,  for  the  edification  of  the  sancti- 
monious, for  the  direction  of  the  preacher,  for  the  information  of  the  in- 
quirer, and  to  be  used  in  the  formation  of  the  youthful  mind,  even  from 
the  first  lispings  of  artless  and  unsuspecting  infancy. 

Yes,  my  friends,  whilst  the  Church  of  Bishop  Kemp,  and  those  of 
his  associates,  use  such  language  as  this,  they  dare  before  a  judicious 
public  to  arraign  us  who  have  not  returned  railing  for  their  railing, 
or  reproach  for  their  scoffing,  though  they  have  thus  denounced  us  in 
their  doctrinal  works.  I  have  never  known  efl'rontery  to  equal  that  of 
which  those  Right  Reverend  and  reverend  approvers  of  the  Reverend 
Joseph  Blanco  White  are  guilty.  They  may,  if  they  will,  set  to  work 
upon  the  amendment  and  revision  of  their  doctrinal  formularies,  they 
may,  if  they  will,  make  their  religion  more  pure ;  with  all  this  we  have 
no  concern ;  but  we  should  not  suffer  them  with  impunity  to  charge  us 
with  holding  a  more  intolerant  doctrine  than  they  do,  when  in  truth 
ours  is  more  liberal,  than  is  the  most  liberal  of  theirs. 

I  have  done  for  the  present  with  the  doctrine  of  exclusive  salvation ; 
not  that  I  have  exhausted  my  topics,  but  that  I  fear  having  tired  my 
readers.  Should  the  holy  alliance  of  our  opponents  desire  it,  they  shall 
be  treated  to  as  much  more  as  they  be  pleased  to  call  for :  I  have  it  made 
up  by  me,  ready  to  order. 

White  now  passes  to  another  topic,  page  72. 

"Believe  a  man  who  has  spent  the  best  years  of  his  life  where  Cath- 
olicism is  professed  without  the  check  of  dissenting  opinions;  where  it 
luxuriates  on  the  soil,  which  fire  and  sword  have  cleared  of  whatever 
might  stunt  its  natural  and  genuine  growth;  a  growth  incessantly 
watched  over  by  the  head  of  your  Church,  and  his  authorized  represent- 
atives, the  Inquisitors." 


two  CALUMNIES   OF   J.   BLANCO   WHITE  453 

This  portion  of  the  chapter,  according  to  its  heading  in  the  title, 
I  expected,  would  give  us  abundant  evidence  of  all  the  atrocities  of 
the  Inquisition,  and  I  therefore  looked  for  an  opportunity  of  giving  a 
correct  statement  of  the  nature  of  that  institution;  but  really  there  is 
so  little  upon  the  subject,  that  I  must  leave  that  history  to  another  place, 
in  which  it  shall  be  more  appropriately  introduced.  After  I  shall  have 
concluded  my  examination  of  White's  Evidence,  1  have  by  me  another 
work,  in  the  examination  of  which  it  will  be  more  properly  given. 

White  calls  upon  us  to  believe  him.  Believe  whom? — Look  to  my 
Letters  V,  VI,  and  so  forth,  and  will  you  believe  him? — "Spain  has 
cleared  the  soil  with  fire  and  sword. ' '  At  all  events,  the  Inquisition  was 
no  sword ;  the  Kings  of  Spain  used  it  in  their  wars  with  the  Moors ;  but  in 
the  name  of  common  sense  why  are  we  to  be  made  accountable  for  the  reg- 
ulations by  which  the  Spanish  government  secured  itself  against  the  sec- 
ret attempts  of  an  enemy  which  had  long  kept  its  people  in  bondage,  and 
which  now  nearly  driven  out  by  the  sword,  sought  to  insinuate  itself 
concealed  in  the  country,  to  make  new  attempts  at  its  subjugation? 
Let  me  put  a  case,  which  being  of  times  now  before  us,  will  be  better 
understood,  and  will  perhaps  even  justify  the  Spanish  policy.  Suppose 
the  cause  of  Greece  triumphant ;  would  our  American  patrons  of  Blanco 
White  condemn  the  policy  which  would  exclude  the  Turks  from  that 
liberated  country  over  which  they  had  so  long  domineered  ?  Would  they 
condemn  the  policy  which  dreading  the  return  of  those  oppressors,  would 
create  a  tribunal  to  inquire  after  such  as  might  remain  concealed  or 
disguised  and  watching  for  a  favorable  opportunity  of  again  subjugating 
their  former  tributaries?  Yet  this  would  be  exactly  what  White  calls 
clearing  the  soil  with  the  sword  in  the  first  instance,  and  if  the  tribunal 
punished  with  death  by  burning  those  discovered  enemies,  it  would  be 
clearing  it  by  fire.  This  was  the  origin  of  the  Spanish  Inquisition,  a 
tribunal  created  in  1480,  by  Ferdinand  and  Isabella,  to  guard  their  ter- 
ritories against  the  return  of  Saracenic  dominion.  Neither  were  the 
Spanish  Inquisitors  the  "authorized  representatives  of  the  head  of  our 
Church. ' '  The  King  of  Spain  named  the  Inquisitor  general  for  all  his 
territories;  this  name  was  transmitted  to  the  Pope  for  his  approbation; 
the  local  Inquisitors  were  nominated  by  this  general,  but  they  had  no 
power  in  virtue  of  this  nomination,  until  it  was  approved  of  and  con- 
firmed by  the  King :  the  monarch  also  appointed  a  council  to  sit  with  the 
Inquisitor  general,  and  by  the  King's  authority  familiars  or  officers  of 
the  local  tribunals  were  appointed  from  amongst  the  nobility,  by  the 
supreme  council :  thus  it  was  not  a  tribunal  of  authorized  representatives 
of  the  Pope,  but  of  the  Spanish  monarch,  and  was  established  not  against 


454  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

heretics,  but  against  the  ancient  Saracenic  enemies  of  the  Spanish  people. 
The  King  of  Spain  seeing  the  desolating  wars  of  Germany  and  the  con- 
vulsions of  France,  in  consequence  of  the  change  of  religion,  and  having 
unity  and  peace  at  home,  charged  the  same  tribunal  to  prevent  the  in- 
troduction into  their  territories  of  those  strife-creating  factions  which 
tortured  the  minds  and  afflicted  the  bodies  of  other  nations ;  they  believed 
that  the  way  to  heaven  was  open  to  the  professors  of  the  ancient  religion, 
and  they  saw  no  necessity  for  introducing  theological  discord  and  tu- 
multous wranglers  into  a  land  which  was  now  enjoying  some  repose, 
It  is  indeed  extraordinary  that  White  should  scarcely  ever  give  even  a 
coloring  of  truth  to  his  statements.  His  book  was  written  in  the  year 
1825,  at  a  period  when  the  Inquisition  did  not  exist,  when  he  well  knew 
there  w^as  no  such  tribunal  in  Spain,  and  yet  he  tells  us  that  "the  growth 
of  Catholicism  is  watched  over  by  the  head  of  our  Church,  and  his  author- 
ized representatives  the  Inquisitors." 

I  have  in  a  former  letter  taken  to  pieces  the  fable  which  he  gives 
us  in  page  73,  concerning  his  mother  and  the  Inquisition.  I  shall  not 
therefore  now  revert  to  it;  but  shall  hasten  to  the  conclusion  of  this 
his  second  letter,  page  74. 

"Such  is  the  spirit  of  ecclesiastical  power  to  which  you  submit. 
The  monstrous  laws  of  which  I  speak,  do  not  belong  to  a  remote  period : 
they  existed  in  full  force  fifteen  years  ago :  they  were  republished,  under 
the  authority  of  the  Pope,  at  a  later  period. ' ' 

But  Mr.  White  here  asserts  a  deliberate  falsehood.  His  letter  is 
addressed  to  the  Roman  Catholics  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  and  the 
power  which  he  describes  is  that  of  the  Spanish  Inquisition,  which  has 
never  been  in  force  in  Great  Britain  or  Ireland.  As  w^ell  might  he  tell 
the  Irish  Catholics  that  the  King  of  Spain  could  nominate  the  archbishop 
of  Armagh  because  the  Pope  consented  to  his  nominating  the  archbishop 
of  Toledo :  as  well  might  he  have  asserted  that  the  Church  lands  in  Ire- 
land belong  to  the  Catholic  Bishops,  because  the  King  of  Spain  agreed 
with  the  Pope  that  the  Church  lands  of  his  dominions  should  belong 
only  to  Roman  Catholics.  This  is  the  discreditable  sophistry  of  en- 
deavoring to  establish  general  conclusions  as  the  result  of  special  premises. 
I  would  be  just  as  well  warranted  in  charging  the  Protestant  Bishops 
of  America  with  voting  the  persecution  of  the  Irish  Catholics.  There 
is  here  also  a  wilful  concealment  of  the  truth :  viz.  that  the  tribunal  has 
been  abolished,  and  that  the  Pope  refused  to  be  concerned  in  its  res- 
toration— page  75, 

' '  If  some  of  your  writers  assume  the  tone  of  freedom  which  belongs 
to  this  age  and  country ;  if  you  profess  your  Faith  without  compulsion ; 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO   WHITE  455 

you  may  thank  the  Protestant  laws  which  protect  you.  Is  there  a  spot 
in  the  universe  where  a  Roman  Catholic  may  throw  off  his  mental  al- 
legiance except  where  Protestants  have  contended  for  that  right,  and 
sealed  it  with  their  blood  ? ' ' 

Of  all  the  barefaced  effrontery  which  ever  was  possessed  by  any  writ- 
er, the  compiler  of  this  passage  must  have  had  the  greatest  share ;  or  he 
must  be  the  most  ignorant  man  who  has  attempted  to  treat  of  such  a  sub- 
ject. He  is  addressing  the  Roman  Catholics  of  Ireland  whose  predeces- 
sors have  written  at  several  periods,  during  centuries  before  they  were 
persecuted  for  adhering  to  their  religion,  with  the  same  freedom  that  they 
do  now:  to  men  whose  fathers  when  they  professed  their  faith  before 
Protestants  existed  did  so  without  compulsion;  the  same  is  true  of  the 
British  Catholics.  They  were  Catholics  who  refused  to  permit  the  Popes 
to  interfere  with  their  national  rights,  with  the  provisions  of  the  Great 
Charter,  who  proclaimed  that  they  would  not  have  the  laws  of  England 
changed,  who  passed  the  statutes  of  Mortmain  and  of  Praemunire.  Is 
it  possible  that  the  sponsors  of  White  can,  even  in  America,  assert  with- 
out blushing  that  the  British  and  Irish  Catholics  may  now  thank  the 
disgraceful  code  of  Protestant  laws  by  which  they  are  persecuted  for 
their  religion,  for  the  ability  to  confess  their  faith  without  compulsion? 
There  never  existed  a  law  in  Ireland  to  compel  a  man  to  profess  any 
faith  or  system  or  religion,  until  Protestant  laws  were  made  to  compel 
Catholics  to  profess  the  Protestant  religion,  and  torture  them  if  they 
refused.  Will  Bishop  Kemp  have  the  goodness  to  produce  the  law  if  it 
existed?  or  state  a  single  instance  of  persecution  upon  the  score  of  re- 
ligion in  Ireland  until  the  time  of  King  Henry  VIII,  whom  God  raised 
up  as  he  did  Josias,  and  Ezechias  ? 

Protestants  never  contended  for  the  right  of  conscience  in  Naples, 
and  never  sealed  it  with  their  blood  in  that  region  or  in  Sicily,  nor  in 
the  States  of  the  Church,  nor  in  Brazil :  yet  in  these  and  several  other 
spots  of  the  universe,  Roman  Catholics  may  and  do  leave  their  Church, 
and  openly  profess  having  thrown  off  their  mental  allegiance.  Thus 
every  particle  of  this  paragraph,  is  a  tissue  of  untruth  and  unblushing 
effrontery.  One  would  imagine  by  his  style  and  manner  that  he  felt  con- 
fident that  Protestants  never  interfered  with  the  freedom  of  conscience. 
What  does  he  say  to  the  penal  laws  whose  continuance  and  Avhose  enforce- 
ment he  advocates?  Could  George  IV  throw  off  his  mental  allegiance, 
for  I  will  not  charge  him  with  the  imitation  of  White 's  own.  hypocrisy, 
without  losing  his  crown  ?  Could  Mr.  Canning  hold  his  place  as  Secre- 
tary of  State  if  he  became  a  Roman  Catholic  ?  Could  the  Lord  Mayor 
of  London  wear  his  golden  chain  if  he  became  a  Roman  Catholic  ?     Could 


456  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

the  Duke  of  Sussex  vote  in  the  house  of  Peers  if  he  became  a  Roman 
Catholic?  Could  Sir  Francis  Burdett  or  Mr.  Brougham  retain  their 
seats  in  the  House  of  Commons  if  they  became  Roman  Catholics? 
Could  the  Duke  of  Wellington  retain  his  office  of  commander-in-chief,  'or 
could  Marquis  Wellesley  retain  the  government  of  Ireland,  if  they  be- 
came Roman  Catholics?  Could  Sir  Wm.  M'Mahon  keep  his  place  as 
Master  of  Rolls  in  Ireland,  if  he  professed  the  religion  of  his  parents 
and  of  his  youth?  Could  the  beadle  of  any  hall  in  a  British  or  Irish 
University,  could  the  lowest  officer  of  the  meanest  corporation  retain 
his  place  and  change  his  religion? — Why  did  the  Swiss  Protestant  can- 
ton turn  Mr.  Haller,  but  three  years  since,  from  his  place  in  her  council  ? 
Because  he  took  the  liberty  of  changing  his  religion  and  returning  to  the 
Church  of  his  ancestors. 

"I  know  that  your  Church  modifies  her  intolerance  according  to 
circumstances,  and  that  she  tolerates  in  France,  after  the  revolution,  the 
Huguenots,  whom  she  would  have  burnt  in  Spain  a  few  years  ago,  and 
whom  she  would  doom  to  some  indefinite  punishment,  little  short  of  the 
stake,  at  this  present  moment.  Such  conduct  is  unworthy  of  the  claims 
which  Rome  contends  for,  and  w^ould  disgrace  the  more  obscure  leader 
of  a  paltry  sect.  If  she  still  claims  the  right  of  wielding  'the  sword  of 
Peter, '  why  does  she  conceal  it  under  her  mantle  ?  If  not,  why  does  she 
not  put  an  end  to  more  than  half  the  miseries  and  degradation  of  Italy, 
Spain,  Portugal  and  Spanish  America,  by  at  once  declaring  that  men  are 
accountable  only  to  God  for  their  religious  belief,  and  that  sincere  and 
conscientious  persuasion  must  both  in  this  and  the  next  world,  be  a  valid 
plea  for  the  pardon  of  error?  Does  the  Church  of  Rome  really  profess 
this  doctrine  ? — It  is  then  the  sacred  duty  for  her  to  remove  at  once  that 
scandal  of  Christianity,  that  intoleranace  which  the  conduct  of  Popes 
and  councils  has  invariably  upheld. ' ' 

Upon  what  does  this  rhapsody  rest?  Upon  a  false  assumption,  viz. 
that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  has  done  w^hat  she  has  not  done:  that 
is,  that  she  has  enacted  the  civil  laws  of  the  various  nations  in  which  her 
faith  was  professed.  She  neither  tolerates  the  Huguenots  in  France, 
nor  has  she  desired  to  burn  him  in  Spain,  and  she  has  no  punishment  to 
inflict  upon  him.  She  asserts  that  he  has  departed  from  the  doctrines 
which  his  father  received  from  the  Apostles,  and  that  his  tenets  are 
not  comformable  to  those  which  came  doAvn  from  the  beginning.  She 
wields  indeed  the  sword  of  Peter,  but  not  to  cut  off  the  ear  of  Malchus, 
for  such  is  not  her  commission,  but  to  cut  off  from  her  communion  those 
who  would  corrupt  her  doctrine,  or  rebel  against  the  authority  committed 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO    WHITE  457 

by  Christ  to  those  whom  the  Holy  Ghost  has  placed  as  governors  in  the 
Church  of  God. 

For  my  part,  I  cannot  see  either  misery  or  degradation  in  any  place 
equal  to  that  which  exists  in  Ireland,  in  consequence  of  the  unholy  effort 
which  the  British  Church  and  State  have  made  to  force  a  people  to  act 
against  her  conscience.  Will  Bishop  Kemp  have  the  kindness  to  ex- 
hibit to  me  any  thing  to  equal  what  I  produce?  As  to  the  next  part, 
the  Church  of  Eome  admits  the  principle  with  its  proper  restrictions; 
but  she  denies  that  this  sincere  conviction  upon  sufficient  groivnds,  exists 
in  those  cases  where  White  assumes  that  it  does,  and  I  deny  the  fact 
which  White  impliedly  asserts,  "that  the  conduct  of  Popes  and  Councils 
has  invariably  upheld  such  intolerance  as  is  the  scandal  of  Christianity." 
It  is  not  my  duty  to  prove  a  negative,  but  I  am  ready  to  meet  any  one 
who  undertakes  to  prove  the  affirmative,  and  to  give  him  sufficient  re- 
turns for  any  instances  which  he  might  adduce. 

"But  if,  as  I  am  persuaded,  Rome  still  thinks  in  conformity  with 
her  former  conduct,  and  yet  the  Roman  Catholics  of  these  kingdoms  dis- 
sent from  her  on  this  point;  they  have  already  begun  to  use  the  Pro- 
testant right  of  private  judgment  upon  one  of  the  articles  of  their  faith ; 
and  I  may  hope  they  will  follow  me  in  the  examination  of  that  alleged 
divine  authority,  by  which  they  are  prevented  from  extending  it  to  all. '  * 

This  is  again  begging  the  question,  and  assuming  the  truth  of  what 
is  untrue.  The  Catholics  of  Ireland  and  Britain  do  not  dissent  from 
the  doctrines  of  their  Church  upon  that  point,  but  they  adhere  thereto ; 
and  White  misrepresents  and  involves  [the  question],  and  after  having 
endeavored  to  render  it  obscure,  states  that  which  is  not  the  fact. 

He  appends  a  note  to  this  letter,  to  show  that  the  friar  Alphonsus 
de  Castro,  who  preached  against  the  persecution  of  the  English  Pro- 
testants, under  Mary,  wrote  a  book,  to  prove  that  the  laws  which  en- 
acted civil  and  canonical  punishment  against  heretics  were  just;  and 
that  the  Fourth  Council  of  Toledo  was  not  as  liberal  as  Mr.  Charles 
Butler  says  it  was.  With  respect  to  the  friar,  it  is  matter  of  notoriety, 
and  admitted  history,  that  he  preached  against  persecution.  When  the 
good  sponsors  of  White  w^ill  adduce  a  single  passage  from  his  book  to 
contradict  the  doctrine  of  his  sermon,  it  will  be  time  enough  for  me  to 
reply  to  their  assertions.  Let  them  produce  the  laws  which  he  de- 
fends. With  respect  to  the  Council  of  Toledo,  it  was  a  mere  question 
between  Mr.  Butler  and  White,  in  his  mode  of  treating  which.  White 
shows  his  own  dishonesty.  In  his  Evidence,  he,  as  I  have  shown,  en- 
deavors to  conclude,  from  the  establishment  of  the  Inquisition  against 
the  Moors  and  Jews,  that  every  Catholic  country  held  the  same  principle, 


458  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

and  that  it  was  enforced  by  the  Catholic  Church  against  all  dissenters 
from  her  body.  But  in  page  238,  he  discovers,  for  his  own  purposes, 
the  distinction  which  I  have  drawn,  and  protests  against  Mr.  Butler's 
deducing  a  general  conclusion  from  a  mere  Spanish  case;  and  founds 
his  explanation  of  a  notorious  fact  upon  the  surmise  of  his  own  opin- 
ion, and  the  induction  of  his  own  probability,  page  239.  I  shall  not 
now,  however,  follow  him  into  the  explanation  of  a  special  case  of 
Spanish  discipline,  as  my  object  is  not  to  vindicate  the  kingdom  of 
Spain,  but  the  Catholic  Church;  and  the  Council  of  Toledo  is  not  a 
General  Council. 

Upon  the  postscript  to  this  letter,  I  shall  make  a  very  short  re- 
mark: 

^'Postscript. — Want  of  books,  or  rather  want  of  sufficient  health 
to  undergo  the  fatigue  and  discomfort  of  consulting  them  in  public 
libraries,  had  made  me  proceed  in  the  composition  of  these  Letters, 
deriving  the  materials  from  my  own  stores,  and  from  the  book  itself, 
against  the  general  tendency  of  which  I  was  induced  to  take  up  the 
pen.  My  knowledge  of  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrines  led  me  soon  to 
conclude  that  Mr.  Butler  was  a  writer  who,  on  the  fairest  construction, 
knew  how  to  divert  his  adversaries  from  all  the  weak  points  of  his  cause. 
Yet  I  trusted  that  the  accuracy  of  his  quotations  might  be  depended 
upon,  especially  when  he  gave  us  authorized  statements  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Tenets.  The  translation  of  the  creed  of  Pius  IV,  which  Mr. 
Butler  inserted  in  his  Book  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  was,  there- 
fore, the  only  document  of  that  kind  from  which  I  deduced  my  argu- 
ments, to  prove  the  duty  incumbent  on  Roman  Catholics  to  propagate 
their  religion  by  every  means  in  their  power.  Whether  I  have  suc- 
ceeded or  failed  in  proving  that  fact  by  inference,  my  readers  will  de- 
cide. But,  upon  a  revision  of  my  arguments,  I  do  not  regret  that  an 
omission,  which  I  subsequently  discovered,  in  Mr.  Butler's  translation  of 
that  creed,  deprived  me,  at  first,  of  the  easiest  and  most  direct  proof 
which  I  could  wish  to  support  my  assertion.  For  had  I  consulted  the 
original  at  once,  the  positive  confirmation  which  that  document  gives 
it,  and  my  own  familiar  conviction  of  its  truth,  would  have  induced  me 
to  save  myself  the  exertion  of  fully  developing  my  argument.  As  it 
now  happens,  I  flatter  myself  that  my  readers  will  give  me  some  credit 
for  accuracy  in  the  knowledge  of  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrines,  when 
they  shall  see  that  a  theoretical  reasoning  from  her  established  general 
principles,  fully  and  accurately  agrees  with  a  positive  injunction  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  of  which  lapse  of  time  had  made  me  forget  the  ex- 
istence. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  459 

"Let  us,  then,  compare  the  last  article  in  Mr.  Butler's  translation 
of  the  creed,  with  the  original. 

* '  Mr.  Butler 's  translation :  '  This  true  Catholic  faith,  out  of  which 
none  can  be  saved,  which  I  now  freely  profess,  and  truly  hold,  I,  N., 
promise,  vow,  and  swear  most  constantly  to  hold  and  profess  the  same 
whole  and  entire,  with  God's  assistance,  to  the  end  of  my  life.    Amen.' 

"The  Latin  original:  ^Hanc  veram  Catholicam  fidem,  extra  quam 
nemo  salvus  esse  potest,  quam  in  praesenti  sponte  profiteor,  et  veraciter 
teneo,  eandem  integram,  et  inviolatam,  usque  ad  extremum  vitae  spatium 
constantissime    {Deo  adjuvante)   retinere  et   confiteri,    atque    a    mets 

SUBDITIS,  VEL  ILLIS  QUORUM  CURA  AD  ME  IN  MUNERE  MEO  SPECTABIT, 
TENERI,  DOCERI,  ET  PRAEDICARI,  QUANTUM  IN  ME  ERIT,  CURATURUM  EGO 
IDEM  N.  SPONDEO,   VOVEO,   AC  JURO. ' 

"Now,  the  words  in  small  capitals,  omitted  by  Mr.  Butler,  contain 
the  very  pith  and  marrow  of  the  strongest  argument  against  the  ad- 
missibility of  Roman  Catholics  to  parliament.  For  if  the  most  solemn 
profession  of  their  faith  lays  on  every  one  of  her  members  who  enjoys 
a  place  of  influence,  the  duty  of  'procuring'  that  all  under  him,  by 
virtue  of  his  office,  shall  hold,  teach,  and  preach  the  doctrines  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  this  under  an  oath  and  vow ;  how  can 
such  men  engage  to  preserve  the  ascendancy  of  the  Church  of  England 
in  these  realms. 

"When,  in  the  New  Times  of  the  5th  of  April,  I  exposed  this  im- 
portant omission  before  the  public,  I  thought  that  Mr.  Butler  would 
have  explained  the  origin  of  it.  But  I  am  not  aware  of  his  having 
given  any  explanation.  Neither  on  that,  nor  on  the  present  occasion,  is 
it  my  intention  to  cast  a  suspicion  on  that  gentleman's  good  faith? 
He  probably  copied  from  some  garbled  translation,  prepared  by  less 
scrupulous  members  of  his  communion,  who  wished  to  conceal  the  real 
tenets  of  their  Church  from  a  Protestant  public.  At  all  events,  this 
fresh  instance  in  inaccuracy,  on  a  most  important  thing,  gives  additional 
propriety  to  caution  in  reading  Mr.  Butler's  defence  of  Catholicism." 

A  more  glaring  untruth  never  was  put  forward  than  that  which 
is  here  asserted,  in  two  instances.  He  charges  Mr.  Charles  Butler  with 
having  given  as  an  exhibition  of  the  Catholic  tenets,  a  garbled  docu- 
ment, by  omitting  an  essential  part.  That  part  which  he  says  was  sup- 
pressed by  Mr.  Butler,  he  gives  at  full  length.  Now,  that  addition 
which  he  gives,  contains  no  expression  of  any  tenet,  but  is  a  promise 
and  oath  given  by  certain  persons,  to  teach  and  to  have  taught  the 
tenets  which  had  been  previously  expressed  and  enumerated  by  Mr. 
Butler,  therefore,  when  they  had  been  so  expressed  and  enumerated. 


460  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

there  was  no  garbling  of  the  document  in  the  translation,  by  any  mem- 
ber of  our  communion,  who  wished  to  conceal  the  real  tenets  of  our 
Church  from  a  Protestant  public.  In  the  next  place,  the  oath  is  no 
part  of  the  tenets,  and  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  creed.  The  original  has 
not  the  oath  or  promise.  The  last  clause  in  the  original  is  exactly  that 
which  Mr.  Butler  has  given  before  the  passage,  which  is  here  stated  as 
the  last  article  given  by  Mr.  Butler,  and  which,  in  fact,  is  no  article, 
except  in  its  first  sentence,  which  is  that  concerning  exclusive  salvation : 
but  to  this  is  appended  a  form  of  promise  always  made  and  sometimes 
sworn  to ;  for  the  words  ' '  vow  and  swear, ' '  are  generally  omitted ;  they 
are  never  used,  except  upon  some  very  extraordinary  occasion,  such  as 
the  reconciliation  of  apostates  to  the  Church.  But  the  question  recurs, 
did  White  forget  the  clause  which  he  says  was  omitted  ?  No ;  but  by  a 
sort  of  deceit,  which  is  highly  censurable,  he  exhibits  as  an  article  of  the 
faith  of  every  Roman  Catholic,  and  sworn  to  by  every  Roman  Catholic, 
that  oath  which  a  Bishop  swears  after  making  the  profession  previously 
to  his  consecration. 

But  this  is  not  all ;  for  as  the  words  evidently  imply  that  this  oath 
binds  a  person  in  office,  to  see  that  all  under  his  charge  shall  hold,  teach, 
and  preach  the  recited  doctrines;  he  with  equal  want  of  principle  and 
decency,  concludes  that  it  would  bind  a  British  Member  of  Parliament, 
by  virtue  of  that  office  or  place,  to  use  his  best  efforts  to  make  the  Pro- 
testant clergy  preach  and  teach  the  Catholic  tenets !  And,  thus,  he  en- 
deavors to  support  his  previous  calumnies  of  our  disregard  for  oaths, 
or  of  the  obligation  of  Catholic  legislators  robbing  Protestant  Churches. 
The  Church  does  not  require  that  the  oath  shall  be  taken  by  such  legis- 
lator, and  therefore  the  whole  postscript  is  an  unbecoming  falsehood, 
and  of  a  piece  with  the  rest  of  the  book.  How  could  Bishop  Kemp  and 
his  associates,  before  the  civilized  world,  give  the  sanction  of  their  names 
to  the  truth  of  those  assertions  ?  As  well  might  I  assert,  that  no  member 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  ought  to  be  permitted  to  take  his 
seat  in  our  Congress,  or  State  Legislatures,  or  that  he  could  not,  with  a 
safe  conscience,  take  such  seat,  if  elected  thereto,  because  the  Bishops 
of  his  Church  on  the  day  of  their  consecration  make  a  solemn  declaration, 
equivalent  to  an  oath,  that  they  will  with  all  faithful  diligence  banish 
and  drive  away  from  the  Church  all  erroneous  and  strange  doctrine  con- 
trary to  God 's  word ;  and  both  privately  and  openly  call  upon  and  en- 
courage others  to  the  same. 

Yours,  and  so  forth,  b.  c. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO    WHITE  461 


LETTER  XXXII 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Apr.  16,  1827. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends, — Hitherto  White's  remarks  were  upon  topics  more  of 
a  political  and  personal  than  of  a  dogmatic  description ;  his  third  letter 
however  is  more  than  the  others,  that  of  which  the  gentlemen  of  "the 
holy  alliance"  should  naturally  be  esteemed  competent  judges,  and  for 
whose  untruths  or  misrepresentations  they  are  individually  and  col- 
lectively as  amenable  to  us  and  to  the  public,  as  is  White  himself.  We 
can  excuse  them  for  much,  and  only  condemn  their  rashness  and  dis- 
position to  do  us  an  unkindness,  when  they  undertake  to  unite  with  Irish 
Orangemen  and  British  persecutors,  in  lecturing  British  and  Irish 
Catholics  for  their  endeavors  to  regain  their  seats  in  their  owti  legis- 
lative assemblies;  and  when  they  paint  us  who  are  Catholics,  to  our 
fellow  citizens,  as  persons  sworn  to  violate  the  constitution  of  this 
Union,  and  those  of  our  States,  by  abusing  the  confidence  of  our  consti- 
tuents, should  we  be  chosen  to  office  or  to  seats  in  the  legislatures.  We 
could  even  smile  at  their  credulity,  if  we  thought  they  really  believed 
what  their  friend,  Blanco  White,  wrote  concerning  the  situation  of  re- 
ligion in  Spain.  But  for  their  approbation  of  the  Third  Letter,  the 
gentlemen  must  stand  or  fall  upon  their  own  merits.  Its  title  is  as 
follows : — 

"Examination  of  the  title  to  infallibility,  spiritual  supremacy,  and 
exclusive  salvation,  claimed  by  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  Internal 
evidence  against  Rome,  in  the  use  she  has  made  of  her  assumed  prerog- 
ative.    Short  method  of  determining  the  question. ' ' 

As  theologians,  the  gentlemen  must  be  presumed  to  have  studied  our 
arguments  in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  infallibility,  before  they  pro- 
nounced those  arguments  to  be  insufficient :  for  we  cannot  suppose  them 
to  have  solemnly  protested  before  God  and  the  world,  that  this  doctrine 
was  erroneous,  until  they  were  fully  acquainted  with  all  that  is  adduced 
to  prove  its  truth.  If  therefore  they  suppress  any  of  those  arguments, 
when  they  state  the  reasons  by  which  we  uphold  the  tenet,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  refuting  them,  they  have  been  guilty  of  that  which  I  need  not 
describe.  They  have  identified  themselves  with  White ;  his  words  there- 
fore must  be  considered  as  theirs.  His  letter  commences  with  the  fol- 
lowing passage : 

"At  the  conclusion  of  my  preceding  Letter,  I  entreated  you  to  ex- 
amine the  title  by  which  your  Church  deprives  her  members  of  the  right 
of  private  judgment  on  religious  matters,  and  denies  salvation  to  those 


462  CONTROVEKSY  Vol. 


who  venture  to  think  for  themselves.  In  making  this  request  I  may  ap- 
pear to  have  overlooked  the  very  essence  of  your  religious  allegiance,  and 
to  demand  a  concession  which  would  at  once  put  you  out  of  the  pale  of 
the  Roman  Church.  But  I  beg  you  to  observe,  that  whatever  be  the  ex- 
tent of  the  authority  of  that  Church  over  you,  there  is  one  point  which 
it  cannot  withhold  from  the  judgment  and  verdict  of  your  reason.  The 
reality  of  her  title  to  be  the  guide  and  rule  of  your  faith,  must  be  a 
matter,  not  of  authority,  but  of  proof.  He  that  claims  obedience  in 
virtue  of  delegated  power,  is  bound  to  prove  his  appointment.  Any 
attempt  to  deprive  those  who,  without  that  appointment  would  be  his 
equals,  of  the  liberty  to  examine  the  authority,  nature  and  extent  of  the 
decree  which  constitutes  the  delegate  above  them;  is  an  invasion  of  men's 
natural  liberty,  as  well  as  a  strong  indication  of  imposture.  If  before 
we  come  to  God  we  must,  through  nature,  believe  that  he  is,  surely  be- 
fore we  yield  our  reason  to  one  who  calls  himself  God's  Vicar,  our  reason 
should  be  satisfied  that  God  has  truly  appointed  him  to  that  superemi- 
nent  post." 

For  the  phrase  "who  think  for  themselves"  would  be  much  more 
correctly  substituted  "who  select  from  the  body  of  revealed  doctrines 
some  which  they  choose  to  retain,  whilst  they  reject  the  remainder  as 
not  suiting  their  taste."  It  is  impossible  to  prevent  a  man's  thinking 
for  himself ;  and  he  who  believes  every  doctrine  of  the  Church  upon  her 
testimony,  exercises  this  right  as  well  and  more  judiciously  than  does 
the  person  who  selects  for  himself:  because  all  revealed  doctrines  are 
believed  upon  the  authority  of  testimony,  and  that  man  who  examines 
the  credibility  of  the  witness,  and  is  satisfied  of  the  existence  of  those 
characteristics  which  make  him  competent  and  credible,  has  necessarily 
thought  for  himself  during  this  examination ;  but  when  the  authority  of 
that  witness  is  fully  established,  the  selection  of  some  portions  of  her 
testimony  is  not  thinking  judiciously,  but  choosing  arbitrarily:  and 
hence  the  person  who  so  chooses  is  called  Algerixos,  a  chooser.  The 
right  of  private  judgment  as  to  the  character  of  the  witness  must  neces- 
sarily precede  the  decision  upon  her  authority,  but  that  authority  once 
recognized,  it  would  be  a  contradiction  to  suppose  a  right  of  choice  to 
remain :  the  co-existence  of  authorized  testimony,  and  of  a  right  of  choice, 
is  impossible.  The  Catholic  Church  does  not  therefore  deprive  her  mem- 
bers of  the  right  of  private  judgment  upon  her  own  character  as  an 
authorized  witness:  nor  does  she  deny  salvation  to  those  who  think  for 
themselves ;  but  she  teaches  that  they  who  choose  for  themselves,  do,  by 
so  acting,  contradict  the  first  principles  of  reason,  and  the  first  maxims 
of  religion. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO    WHITE  463 

Had  the  writer  laid  down  these  maxims  without  having  had  re- 
course to  that  sophistry  of  language,  which  in  the  very  choice  of  its  ex- 
pressions begs  the  question  in  debate,  I  should  without  any  remark,  have 
admitted  his  position,  that  "the  reality  of  the  title  of  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic Church  to  be  the  guide  and  rule  of  our  faith,  must  be  a  matter  not 
of  authority  but  of  proof, "  as  I  would  also  have  granted  him  the  propo- 
sition which  precedes  that  statement. 

I  have  here  to  expose  another  of  those  subterfuges  which  the  writer 
has  frequent  recourse  to  in  the  process  of  his  work,  the  use  of  ambiguous 
phrases,  so  as  to  destroy  the  distinction  between  objects  which  are  very 
unlike.  It  is  observable  that  many  of  our  opponents  in  speaking  of  our 
Church,  call  it  the  "Roman  Church,"  others  the  "Romish  Church," 
and  others  the  "Church  of  Rome."  I  am  aware  that  in  a  great  many 
cases  it  is  caused  by  pure  unmixed  ignorance,  in  others  by  dislike  and 
bigotry,  but  many  use  it  more  for  the  purposes  of  sophistry.  This 
latter  description  of  persons  know  that  the  Roman  Church,  or  the 
Church  of  Rome,  is  only  the  diocese  which  is  superintended  by  the  Pope 
as  an  individual  Bishop :  that  the  Catholic  Church  is  spread  throughout 
the  w^orld,  but  as  in  several  parts  of  the  world  there  are  separatists  of 
various  descriptions,  who  claim  to  be  portions  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
those  Catholics  who  are  in  communion  with  the  See  or  Church  of  Rome, 
and  who  acknowledge  it  to  be  the  mother  and  mistress  of  all  other 
Churches,  are  designated  by  the  addition  of  the  pr^enomen  Roman,  and 
therefore,  that  although  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  is  spread  through 
the  w^hole  world,  the  Church  of  Rome  does  not  extend  beyond  the  walls 
of  that  city.  White  here  tells  the  persons  whom  he  addresses,  as  "the 
impartial  amongst  the  Roman  Catholics  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland," 
that  a  certain  concession  would  at  once  put  them  ' '  out  of  the  pale  of  the 
Roman  Church."  This  is  just  as  if  Bishop  Kemp  should  tell  me  who  am 
a  citizen  of  Charleston,  that  doing  a  certain  act  would  put  me  out  of 
the  citizenship  of  Baltimore,  of  which  place  I  never  was  a  citizen.  If 
the  Roman  Catholic  who  resides  in  the  archdiocese  of  Dublin,  should  re- 
move his  residence  to  the  diocese  of  Rome,  he  would  be  immediately 
recognized  and  received,  because  of  his  quality  of  Roman  Catholic,  and 
would  become  a  member  of  the  Roman  Church,  ceasing  to  be  a  member 
of  the  Church  of  Dublin;  as  the  Bishop,  if  he  is  an  American  citizen 
would  be  received  and  admitted  a  member  of  our  city,  upon  his  com- 
ing hither  and  ceasing  to  be  a  citizen  of  Baltimore.  Thus  every  member 
of  the  Roman  Church  is  a  Roman  Catholic,  but  very  few  Roman  Cath- 
olics are  members  of  the  Roman  or  Romish  Church,  or  Church  of  Rome, 
Having  thus  adverted  to  the  manner  in  which  the  terms  are  confounded, 


464  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

I  shall  only  lay  down  the  general  principle  upon  which  we  may  fre- 
quently detect  the  sophistrj-.  Our  opponents  prove  that  some  act  has 
been  done  by  the  Roman  Church,  and  charge  it  upon  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic Church,  and  thus  draw  an  universal  conclusion  from  particular 
premises ;  which  is  just  as  fair  a  mode  of  reasoning,  as  if  I  was  to  charge 
the  murder  of  Morgan  the  freemason,  upon  all  the  freemasons  in  the 
world.  Christians,  Jews,  Turks,  Indians,  and  all  others  of  the  fra- 
ternity. 

I  will  not  quarrel  with  the  amplification  which  goes  to  exhibit  what 
I  before  admitted  "the  reality  of  her  title  to  be  the  guide  and  rule  of 
your  faith,  must  be  matter  not  of  authority  but  of  proof — "  the  word 
her  refers  to  that  Church ;  that  Church  again  is  of  no  meaning,  unless  it 
refers  to  your  Church,  which  depriving  the  members  of  their  right  of 
private  judgment,  asserts  her  title  to  be  the  guide,  and  so  forth.  Thus 
the  question  which  in  this  case  is  proposed,  for  examination,  is  the  title 
of  the  Church  of  the  Roman  Catholics  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland; 
the  Church  to  which  they  submit  is  not  the  Roman  Church,  but  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  spread  through  the  whole  world,  and  which 
they  profess  to  be  for  them  an  infallible  guide  to  the  faith;  her  rule  of 
faith  they  look  upon  to  be  correct.  White  sets  out  with  a  promise  to 
examine  the  proof  of  the  reality  of  her  title.  And  he  does  not  even  touch 
upon  the  examination !  !  !  Even  in  this  first  sentence  of  his  letter  he 
thrice  changes  the  very  state  of  the  question.  He  first  gives  us  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  Church,  then  the  Roman  Church,  he  returns  to  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  or  he  states  w^hat  is  not  true ;  and  last  of  all  he  under- 
takes to  examine,  not  the  proofs  of  the  infallibility  of  the  Church,  either 
Roman  or  Roman  Catholic,  but  whether  God  has  truly  appointed  as  his 
Vicar,  one  who  calls  himself  such,  and  to  whom  we  are  called  upon  to 
yield  our  reason.  And  this  is  theology!  !  !  Verily  it  might  pass  at 
Oxford,  but  no  degree  would  be  conferred  at  Seville  for  such  theology 
as  this!  In  the  name  of  common  sense  are  those  two  questions  the 
same?  1.  Is  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  an  infallible  guide  to  the 
knowledge  of  w^hat  God  has  revealed?  2.  Ought  we  yield  our  reason  to 
one  who  calls  himself  God's  Vicar?  For  my  part  I  think  they  are  as 
far  asunder  as  the  poles:  and  I  should  first  like  to  know  whether  there 
ever  was  an  individual  w'ho  called  himself  God's  Vicar,  whilst  he  de- 
manded the  sacrifice  of  reason :  I  avow  myself  to  be  one  who  never 
heard  of  such  a  claim  having  been  made,  and  who  am  not  prepared  to 
make  the  sacrifice.  My  reason  teaches  me  that  I  ought  to  believe  the 
doctrines  of  God,  and  that  I  shall  infallibly  arrive  at  their  knowledge  by 
the  testimony  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  in  receiving  that  testi- 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  465 


mony,  I  do  not  yield  my  reason,  but  I  act  conformably  to  its  clearest 
dictates. 

White  proceeds  to  state  his  case  after  having  slabbered  through  his 
preliminary  sentence — 

"How  then  stands  the  case  between  the  Church  of  Rome  and  the 
world  1 

"The  Church  of  Rome  proclaims  that  Jesus  Christ,  both  God  and 
man,  having  appeared  on  earth  for  the  salvation  of  mankind,  appointed 
the  Apostle  Peter  to  be  his  representative ;  made  him  the  head  of  all  the 
members  of  his  Church  then  existing;  and  granted  a  similar  privilege 
to  Peter's  successors.  Christ  ensured  an  infallible  knowledge  of  the 
sense  of  the  Scriptures,  and  an  equally  infallible  knowledge  of  certain 
traditions,  and  their  true  meaning.  On  the  strength  of  this  divine  ap- 
pointment, the  Church  of  Rome  demands  the  same  faith  in  the  decisions 
of  her  head,  when  approved  'by  the  tacit  assent  or  open  consent  of  the 
greatest  part  of  her  Bishops,'  as  if  they  proceeded  from  the  mouth  of 
Christ  himself.  The  divine  commission,  on  which  she  grounds  these 
claims,  runs  in  these  words  of  Christ  to  the  chief  of  his  Apostles :  '  Thou 
art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church ;  and  the  gates  of 
hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it :  And  I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  on  earth  shall 
be  bound  in  heaven,  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on  earth  shall  be 
loosed  in  heaven. '  ' ' 

This  sentence  I  divide  into  three  parts,  and  I  deny  the  correctness 
of  the  preliminary  allegation,  viz.  that  the  question  is  between  the  Church 
of  Rome  and  the  world :  the  parties  are  by  no  means  properly  designated. 
The  tirst  party  is  not  the  Church  of  Rome,  but  is  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church:  the  second  party  is  not  the  world,  but  is  the  congregation  of 
all  the  different  sorts  of  sectaries  which  have  ever  separated  from  the 
Catholic  Church,  from  the  followers  of  Ebion,  or  Nicholas,  or  Cerinthus, 
or  Simon  Magus,  down  to  the  last  denomination,  whatever  it  may  be, 
which  has  raised  a  pulpit  for  its  peculiar  teacher.  I  assert  that  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  has  in  her  communion  at  least  one  hundred 
and  fifty  millions  of  the  present  inhabitants  of  the  world :  they  must  be 
deducted  from  Blanco  White's  world.  We  must  next  deduct  a  much 
larger  number  who  have  no  share  whatever  in  the  contest,  who  know 
nothing  of  the  question,  who  therefore  are  not  parties  in  the  ease;  the 
bulk  of  the  inhabitants  of  China,  of  Japan,  of  India,  of  Persia,  of 
Thibet,  of  Tartary,  of  Arabia,  of  Turkey,  of  Africa.  After  making  this 
deduction,  we  shall  have  but  a  very  small  portion  of  the  world,  and 
from  even  this  we  must  deduct  the  Israelites,  and  pure  Deists.     We 


466  CONTEOVERSY  Vol. 

shall  have  the  Greek  Church,  which  is  separated  from  the  communion  of 
Rome,  together  with  the  miserable  remnants  of  Nestorians,  Eutychians, 
Macedonians,  Sabellians,  Arians,  Monothelites,  and  the  Russian  estab- 
lished Church :  to  these  I  add  all  the  various  descriptions  of  Protestants ; 
and  I  believe  I  overrate  their  amount  in  making  the  entire  of  those  who 
profess  the  Christian  religion,  but  are  not  Roman  Catholics,  sum  up  at 
seventy-five  millions.  Thus  an  accurate  and  honest  writer  would  have 
commenced,  by  stating  that  the  parties  in  the  case  w^ere  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  on  the  one  side,  and  all  other  denominations  on  the 
other:  and  he  would  have  added,  if  he  desired  to  be  exact  in  his  state- 
ment, that  although  their  aggregate  did  not  exceed  half  the  number  of 
the  Roman  Catholics,  this  was  the  only  case  in  the  whole  range  of  doc- 
trine, upon  which  they  could  possibly  be  brought  in  array  together 
against  her: — on  every  other  point  they  waged  war  upon  each  other,  a 
large  portion  of  them  upon  every  other  question  voting  in  support  o£ 
the  Roman  Catholic  tenets,  and  condemning  as  erroneous  those  with 
whom  they  now  united  for  the  moment.  Thus  he  w^ould  have  stated, 
upon  this  question,  the  fact  that  this  is  Christ's  doctrine,  is  supported 
by  the  testimony  of  all  Christendom,  with  a  majority  of  two  to  one,  and 
in  every  other  doctrinal  question,  with  a  much  greater  majority;  and 
thus  instead  of  coming  to  the  examination  with  that  prejudice  which  is 
excited  by  the  wrong  description  of  the  parties  at  issue,  the  readers  of 
the  Evidence  would  not  only  have  that  prejudice  removed,  but  would  be 
led  to  ask  themselves  this  question,  "Has  the  majority  been  always  at 
the  same  side  ? "  To  which  I  assert,  the  history  of  the  Christian  Church 
would  have  answered,  "Yes."  I  would  then  leave  to  their  own  fate  the 
following  questions:  "And  is  it  possible  that  at  all  times  the  majority 
of  the  Christian  world  were  ignorant  of  the  true  Christian  doctrine?" 
"And  upon  what  rational  grounds  shall  I  follow  the  testimony  of  the 
minority,  or  of  some  subdivision  of  that  minority,  or  my  own  individual 
conjecture,  in  opposition  to  the  testimony  of  the  great  body  of 
Christians?" 

The  first  proposition  of  "White's  sentence  is  that  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  teaches  the  supremacy  of  St.  Peter,  and  his  successors,  to  the 
end  of  the  world.  The  second  proposition  is,  that  Christ  promised,  ac- 
cording to  the  doctrine  of  that  Church,  a  certain  specified  infallibility  to 
the  Church,  united  under  Peter  and  his  successors.  The  corollary  from 
this  second  proposition  is  stated  to  be  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
demands  acquiescence  to  her  decisions,  when  made  in  a  specified  man- 
ner— and  the  third  proposition  is,  that  the  only  proof  of  this  commission 
is  the  words  quoted,  as  spoken  by  Christ  to  the  chief  of  his  Apostles. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO    WHITE  467 


I  will  admit  the  truth  of  the  first  proposition.  In  viewing  the  sec- 
ond, I  find  White  to  be  grossly  incorrect  in  these  expressions,  "An  in- 
fallible knowledge  of  certain  traditions,  and  their  true  meaning."  I 
shall  allow  the  corollary,  but  his  third  proposition  is  altogether  incor- 
rect. 

There  is  a  wide  distinction  to  be  taken  between  a  certainty  that  we 
are  to  receive  the  testimony  of  true  doctrine  with  infallible  correctness 
from  a  designated  witness,  and  a  certainty  of  the  special  mode  by  which 
that  witness  will  give  that  infallibly  correct  testimony,  or  obtain  the 
knowledge  necessary  to  give  such  testimony.  When  the  people  of  Israel 
beheld  the  miracles  which  Moses  wrought,  they  had  the  testimony  of 
heaven,  and  of  course  the  utmost  certainty  that  he  was  to  declare  to 
them  the  truth  of  God:  the  object  of  the  Lord  being  to  make  him  a 
witness,  whose  testimony  would  give  them  infallibly  correct  knowledge 
of  the  will  of  God.  Nothing  more  was  necessary  than  the  declaration, 
on  the  part  of  the  Most  High,  that  his  will  would  be  taught  by  Moses. 
Whether  the  Lord  gave  the  knowledge  to  Moses  by  inspiration,  or  by 
conversation,  or  by  writing,  or  by  vision,  or  by  strengthening  his  natural 
powers  of  reasoning,  made  no  difference :  still  he  was  the  authorized  in- 
terpreter of  the  will  of  Heaven ;  for  God  had  declared  that  he  had  com- 
missioned him  for  that  purpose.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  states 
that  God  has  made  her  the  authorized  witness  of  what  he  has  revealed, 
and  that  her  testimony,  given  by  the  decision  of  the  great  majority  of 
her  Bishops  together  with  their  head,  is  the  infallibly  correct  rule  of  as- 
certaining what  has  been  revealed.  In  a  word,  she  says  that  the  error 
of  hell  will  never  prevail  over  her  testimony  of  the  truth  of  heaven. 
She  does  not  state  in  this  general  principle,  the  special  mode  by  which 
she  will  arrive  at  the  knowledge  which  she  communicates :  it  might,  or 
it  might  not  be  the  mode  which  White  designates :  but  one  truth  is  ob- 
vious, that  if  the  commission  was  given  at  the  time  designated  by  the 
writer,  it  could  not  have  been  then  executed  in  the  manner  specified  by 
him,  because  the  books  containing  Christ's  doctrine  were  not  then  writ- 
ten :  and  the  first  commissioners,  who  had  no  predecessors  in  their  office, 
could  not  know  traditions  of  such  predecessors.  Neither  White,  nor  his 
abettors,  thei?,  having  given  to  us  what  the  Church  states  to  be  her  com- 
mission, it  is  proper  that  we  should  see  what  she  claims.  Her  doctrine 
is,  that  the  testimony  given  by  the  judicial  decision  of  the  great  majority 
of  her  Bishops,  together  with  the  successor  of  Peter,  who  is  the  head  of 
the  Church,  is  an  infallibly  correct  mode  of  learning  what  Christ  has 
taught,  as  necessary  to  be  believed,  and  necessary  to  be  practised,  in  order 
to  obtain  salvation.    I  admit  the  corollary  drawn  by  White  flows  from 


468  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

this ;  but  I  assert  that  what  he  lays  down  instead  of  this  proposition, 
differs  very  materially  therefrom. 

I  stated  that  our  opponents  gave  the  commission  which  the  Saviour 
conferred  on  Peter,  as  above  recited,  as  our  only  proof  of  the  infallibility 
of  the  Church.  I  used  the  expression  only,  because  it  is  the  only  proof 
of  ours  which  they  adduce,  where  the  nature  of  the  case  fairly  required 
of  them  to  adduce  all,  or  at  least  several,  or  to  state  that  there  were 
others.  Now,  as  we  produce  several  others,  and  they  make  no  allusion 
even  to  any  one  of  them ;  they  are  ignorant  of  their  existence,  or  they 
knew  and  wilfully  concealed  them.  I  shall  not  interfere  with  their 
choice. 

Before  I  proceed  to  remind  you  of  what  our  proofs  are,  allow  me  to 
conclude  this  letter  by  examining  the  manner  in  which  even  this  argu- 
ment, adduced  by  themselves,  is  met  by  White. 

"It  will  not  be  denied,  that  between  this  unquestionable  authority 
and  the  statement  which  precedes  it,  there  is  no  verbal  agreement.  A 
man  unacquainted  with  the  system  of  divinity  supported  by  the  Church 
of  Rome,  would  probably  perceive  no  connection  between  the  alleged 
passage  and  the  commentary.  But  let  us  suppose  that  these  words  of  our 
Saviour  contain  the  meaning  in  question :  yet  no  man  will  deny,  that  if 
they  do  contain  it,  it  is  in  an  indirect  and  obscure  manner.  The  fact 
then  is,  that  even  if  the  Church  of  Rome  should  be  really  endowed  wdth 
the  supernatural  assistance  which  she  asserts,  the  divine  founder  of 
Christianity  was  pleased  to  make  the  existence  of  that  extraordinary 
gift  one  of  the  least  obvious  truths  contained  in  the  Gospels. ' ' 

Now  I  am  one  of  those  who  will  make  that  very  denial  which  he 
says  will  not  be  made :  for  I  find  a  verbal  agreement  between  the  sub- 
jects of  both  propositions,  "the  Church  united  under  Peter  and  his 
successors, "  "  My  Church  built  upon  Peter, "  or  if  the  holy  alliance  will 
so  have  it,  though  such  is  not  the  text,  ' '  The  Church  built  upon  the  faith 
of  Peter."  I  also  find  a  plain  agreement  between  the  attributes,  "infal- 
lible knowledge  of  Avhat  heaven  reveals" — and  "not  to  be  prevailed 
against  by  the  gates  of  hell ' '  or  the  power  of  hellish  error.  I  find  it  also 
in  the  circumstance  which  joins  them  in  each  ease,  viz.  the  promise  of 
Christ.  I  am  a  man,  and  I  deny  that  the  assurance  is  only  either  ob- 
scurely or  indirectly  contained  in  the  words,  but  I  assert  that  it  is  con- 
tained plainly  and  directly  in  them,  and  that  it  is  one  of  the  most  obvious 
truths  in  the  Gospels.  Nor  am  I  singular  in  this.  I  have  the  majority 
of  Christendom,  during  successive  ages,  at  my  side:  of  course  our  op- 
ponents will  assert,  with  their  usual  modesty  and  love  for  republican 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  469 

principles,  that  the  minority  must  be  right.  White  continues  to  disprove 
our  proof  in  the  following  manner,  page  84: 

''It  might  have  been  expected,  however,  that  Peter,  in  his  Epistles, 
or  in  the  addresses  to  the  first  Christians,  which  the  Acts  record,  would 
have  removed  the  obscurity ;  and  that,  since  the  grant  of  infallibility  to 
him,  to  his  peculiar  Church,  and  to  his  successors  in  the  See  of  that 
Church,  (either  independently  of  the  infallibilitj^  of  others,  or  in  combi- 
nation with  other  privileged  persons — for  this  is  also  left  in  great  ob- 
scurity,) was  made  the  only  security  against  the  attacks  of  hell:  he  would 
have  taken  care  to  explain  the  secret  sense  of  Christ's  address  to  him. 
Peter,  however,  does  not  make  the  slightest  allusion  to  his  privilege." 

In  this  passage,  all  that  is  contained  is  reducible  to  this  semblance 
of  proof,  "Peter  does  not  state  that  infallibility  was  granted  to  the 
Church;  therefore  it  was  not  granted."  Suppose  I  were  to  admit  the 
truth  of  the  first  proposition,  the  second  is  not  a  necessary  consequence 
of  that  admission.  St.  ]\Iatthew,  who  does  state  it,  is  as  good  a  wit- 
ness as  is  St.  Peter;  and  the  silence  of  one  does  not  destroy  the  testi- 
mony of  the  other.  The  holy  alliance  and  their  associates  never  doubted 
the  fact  of  Peter's  denial  of  Christ,  though  he  never  mentions  that  fact 
in  his  Epistles,  and  Peter  was  more  disposed  to  state  his  faults  than  his 
privileges :  nor  need  he  in  his  Epistle  testify  of  that  infallibility  which 
no  Christian  called  in  question  at  the  time  of  his  writing.  But  I  have 
farther  to  object  to  this  passage  than  dishonesty  of  construction,  to  which 
I  have  before  alluded,  a  changing  of  terms;  here  we  have  "the  grant  of 
infallibility  to  him:"  in  page  81,  it  was  the  reality  of  her  title  to  be  the 
"guide  and  rule  of  your  faith:"  here  we  have  "his  peculiar  Church," 
that  is,  the  Roman  Church:  in  page  81,  it  was  "your  church,"  "the  Ro- 
man Catholic  Church,"  which  by  his  confusion  of  terms  he  attempted 
to  identify  with  the  ' '  Roman  Church, ' '  Peter 's  ' '  peculiar  Church. ' '  We 
have  here  his  successors ;  and  a  new  step  is  made  to  take  infallibility 
from  the  Church  and  bestow  it  upon  the  individual,  "independ- 
ently of  the  infallibility  of  others,"  which  is  not  what  he  laid 
down  in  this  statement  upon  page  63:  "the  decisions  of  her  head, 
when  approved  by  the  tacit  or  open  consent  of  the  greatest  part  of  her 
Bishops:"  we  have  here  "privileged  persons."  No  mention  is  made  of 
such  persons  even  in  his  own  statement,  for  no  privilege  was  given  to 
persons,  but  authority  to  give  infallibly  correct  decisions  was  given  to 
an  aggregate  body,  not  to  the  separate  members  who  compose  that  body, 
in  their  individual  or  personal  capacities;  as  no  power  of  legislation  is 
given  to  either  the  President  or  to  any  individual  member  of  Congress 
taken  alone ;  neither  of  them  has  the  personal  privilege  of  making  a  law, 


470  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

but  the  legislative  authority  is  vested  in  their  aggregate  body.  Nor  is  it 
true  there  ' '  is  obscurity, ' '  nor  is  it  true  that  there  is  any  '  *  secret  sense  of 
Christ's  address  to  Peter."  Thus  there  are  a  dishonest  change  of  terms, 
and  two  false  assumptions,  together  with  three  or  four  insinuations  of 
untruth,  in  this  illogical  sentence. 

"His  successors  being  not  named  in  the  supposed  original  grant  of 
supremacy,  it  was  in  course  that,  by  an  express  declaration,  Peter  would 
obviate  the  natural  inference,  that  they  were  excluded  from  his  own 
personal  prerogatives.  But  Peter  is  equally  silent  about  his  successors; 
and  to  add  to  the  original  mysteriousness  of  the  subject,  he  never  men- 
tions Rome,  and  dates  his  Epistles  from  Babylon.  Babylon  may  figura- 
tively mean  Rome ;  the  silence  of  both  our  Saviour  and  his  Apostle  may, 
by  some  strange  rule  of  interpretation,  be  proved  to  denote  those  suc- 
cessors ;  the  whole  system,  in  fine,  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  may  be 
contained  in  the  alleged  passage;  but,  if  so,  it  is  contained  like  a  dia- 
mond in  a  mountain. ' ' 

Mr.  White  is  a  member  of  the  Church  of  England,  Bishop  Kemp  is 
a  member  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  America;  let  them 
adopt  the  principle  here  in  its  application  to  the  hierarchy  which  they 
say  they  have,  and  upon  what  ground  will  they  prove  that  the  Bishops 
were  to  succeed  the  Apostles?  Upon  what  ground  will  the  gentlemen 
of  other  denominations  prove  that  any  person  was  to  succeed  to  a  power 
of  administering  a  sacrament  ?  If  they  deny  that  the  successor  of  Peter 
was  to  succeed  to  the  power  of  Peter,  they  must  deny  that  any  minister 
was  to  succeed  to  the  power  of  the  first  ministers  of  the  Christian  re- 
ligion, because  Christ  never  used  the  word  successors.  This  has,  how- 
ever, no  connexion  with  the  question  of  infallibility.  But  the  Church 
was  to  be  built  upon  Peter,  for  such  is  the  expression  in  the  original ;  the 
subterfuge  that  the  given  name  of  the  Apostle  does  not  in  the  English 
language  signify  what  it  does  in  the  Syro-Chaldaic,  will  be  too  miserable 
to  be  attempted  by  any  person  having  respect  for  his  character.  White 
must  acknowledge  that  the  proper  translation  is,  ' '  Thou  art  a  Bock,  and 
upon  this  Rock  I  will  build  my  Church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  never 
prevail,"  and  so  forth.  The  rock,  Peter  being  the  foundation,  must  con- 
tinue as  long  as  the  edifice ;  for  the  gentlemen  will  not  assert  that  we  were 
to  have  a  baseless  edifice,  and  thus  the  office  then  instituted  in  the  per- 
son was  to  continue  as  long  as  the  Church  itself,  which  was  to  the  end 
of  the  world.  It  has  now  continued  during  nearly  eighteen  centuries. 
The  next  quibble  is  indeed  a  miserable  piece  of  sophistry.  We  do  not 
state  that  the  Saviour  mentioned  Rome,  nor  was  it  necessary.  We  say 
the  successors  of  Peter  or  the  Rock  were  to  be  the  chief  pastors  of  the 


two  CALUMNIES   OF   J.   BLANCO   WHITE  471 


Church ;  had  Peter  continued  at  Antioch,  the  Bishops  of  that  See  would 
have  inherited  his  power.  The  facts  of  his  death  and  the  designation  of 
his  See,  and  the  recognition  of  his  successor,  and  not  the  declaration  of 
the  Saviour  or  his  own,  pointed  out  where  the  power  originally  given 
by  Christ  was  to  continue.  Neither  do  we  say  that  it  is  the  silence  but 
the  institution  of  the  Saviour,  and  the  declaration  of  his  Apostles,  which 
denoted  the  successors  of  Peter,  nor  do  we  say  that  the  whole  system  of 
the  Eoman  Catholic  Church— how  quickly  the  gentleman  changes  his 
terms — is  contained  either  in  that  passage  or  in  a  mountain. 

"The  plainest  sense'  of  any  one  passage  of  the  Scriptures  cannot 
be  so  palpable  as  the  obscurity  of  the  present.  It  follows,  therefore, 
with  all  the  force  of  demonstration,  that  the  divine  right  claimed  by  the 
Pope  and  his  Church  to  be  the  infallible  rule  of  faith,  having  no  other 
than  an  obscure  and  doubtful  foundation,  the  belief  in  it  cannot  be  ob- 
ligatory on  all  Christians,  who  are  left  to  follow  the  suggestions  of  their 
individual  judgment  as  to  the  obscure  meaning  of  the  Scriptures,  till  the 
Scriptures  themselves  shall  be  found  to  demand  the  resignation  of  that 
judgment." 

Now  I  believe  the  gentleman  will  be  found  here  begging  all  his  posi- 
tions, for  the  passage  is  not  obscure;  the  only  demonstration  which  he 
has  made  is  that  of  his  own  dishonesty;  and  he  concludes  by  assuming 
that  which  we  deny,  that  if  the  Scriptures  be  obscure,  th^re  is  no  way 
of  knowing  their  meaning  until  they  shall  be  made  clear  by  themselves. 
This  is  another  question,  which  I  must  lay  aside  for  the  present. 

Yours,  and  so  forth,  b.  c. 

LETTER  XXXIII. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Apr.  23,  1827. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends, — I  have  shown  you  in  my  last  letter,  White's  false- 
hoods, and  dishonesty  respecting  our  doctrine  of  infallibility.  We  shall 
see  in  his  next  passage  what  is  in  perfect  accordance  with  his  last  as- 
sumption, viz.  ' '  That  individuals  are  by  the  Christian  law  left  to  follow 
the  suggestions  of  their  individual  judgment  as  to  the  obscure  meaning 
of  the  Scriptures,  till  the  Scriptures  themselves  shall  be  found  to  de- 
mand the  resignation  of  that  judgment."  In  other  words  this  is  an  as- 
sertion that  Christ  gave  us  only  the  Scriptures  to  lead  us  to  a  knowledge 
of  his  doctrine.  The  assertion  contains  two  mistakes,  because  the  Saviour 
did  not  give  us  the  Scriptures ;  and  the  mode  of  learning  the  doctrine 
which  was  established  by  him,  and  followed  by  his  Apostles,  was  not 


472  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

by  submitting  the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures  to  the  judgment  of  indi- 
viduals. And  indeed  St.  Peter  tells  us  that  many  persons  who  proceeded 
upon  this  plan  did  thereby  procure  their  own  damnation. 

White's  object,  as  is  that  of  all  those  who  are  engaged  in  the  same 
cause  with  him,  is  to  persuade  mankind,  first,  that  every  individual  is 
equally  authorized  to  pass  his  private  judgment  upon  the  meaning  of 
every  text,  and  next  to  bring  them  to  a  belief  that  from  a  vast  number 
of  the  passages  which  are  so  obscure,  no  person  can  with  certainty  know 
the  doctrine  which  God  taught,  and  hence  they  must  inevitably  arrive 
at  these  conclusions :  That  God  revealed  to  man  doctrines  for  his  belief, 
which  doctrines  he  cannot  discover:  or  else  that  he  gave  a  revelation 
which  being  unintelligible,  man  is  at  liberty  to  reject :  or  else  that  man 
is  bound  to  believe  doctrines  which  are  not  only  undiscoverable,  but  also 
unintelligible.  This  I  submit,  is  not  very  complimentary  to  God,  to 
man,  to  the  Bible,  or  to  Christianity;  and  has  been  the  chief  cause  of 
that  extensive  infidelity  which  we  now  witness.  Mark  what  he  has  writ- 
ten, and  what  the  holy  alliance  has  approved  and  recommended  to  the 
perusal  of  their  flocks,  page  85  : 

"I  request  you  to  observe,  that  the  force  of  my  argument  does  not 
depend  upon  the  erroneousness  of  the  Roman  interpretation  of  the  pas- 
sages alleged  for  the  spiritual  supremacy ;  all  I  contend  for  is  the  doubt- 
fulness of  their  meaning:  for  to  suppose  that  the  divine  founder  of 
Christianity,  while  providing  against  doubt  in  his  future  followers,  would 
miss  his  aim  by  overlooking  the  obscurity  in  which  he  left  the  remedy 
he  wished  to  appoint ;  is  a  notion  from  which  Christians  must  shrink.  It 
follows,  therefore,  either  that  Christ  did  not  intend  what  the  Romanists 
believe  about  Peter  and  his  Church;  or  that,  since  he  concealed  his 
meaning,  an  obedience  to  the  Roman  Church  cannot  be  a  necessary  con- 
dition in  his  disciples." 

How  would  the  venerable  gentlemen  answer  the  Baptist  from  whom 
the  majority  of  them  differ,  when  he  tells  them,  "At  least  my  friends, 
you  have  only  your  surmises  that  infants  are  capable  of  baptism.  You 
must  admit  that  it  is  doubtful  if  they  are,  you  must  then  admit  that 
Christ  did  not  intend  infant  baptism  to  be  a  necessary  doctrine  for  his 
disciples. ' '  What  will  the  venerable  body  say  to  the  Unitarian,  who  de- 
fies them  to  produce  a  single  text  from  the  Scriptures  which  would  even 
create  a  doubt  in  favor  of  what  he  is  pleased  to  call  the  monstrous  and 
absurd  doctrine  of  a  Triune  God?  Especially  as  several  of  them  have 
very  generously,  and  with  becoming  liberality  made  him  a  present  of  the 
7th  verse  of  the  fifth  chapter  of  St.  John's  First  Epistle.  Upon  their 
principle  there 'must  be  more  or  less  of  doubt  as  to  every  doctrine :  upon 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  473 


ours  there  is  no  doubt  respecting  any  doctrine.  When  therefore  the 
gentleman  and  his  abettors  assume  what  we  deny,  and  draw  inferences 
from  the  assumption,  it  is  not  reasoning,  it  is  unbecoming  sophistry; 
and  all  that  is  built  upon  such  a  foundation  must  totter  and  fall.  They 
assume  that  what  we  assert  to  be  clear,  plain,  and  distinct,  is  obscure  and 
doubtful.  They  next  tell  us  that  what  is  doubtful  proves  nothing;  we 
admit  the  principle,  but  we  deny  its  applicability  to  the  case  before  us. 

The  value  of  the  succeeding  paragraph  is  easily  settled,  after  the 
view  which  I  have  thus  taken,  page  86 : 

"The  liberty  which,  upon  the  supposition  most  favorable  to  Rome, 
Christ  has  granted  to  believers  in  his  Gospel,  the  Pope  and  his  Church 
most  positively  deny  them.  Placing  themselves  between  mankind  and 
the  Redeemer,  they  allow  those  only  to  approach  him,  who  first  make  a 
full  surrender  of  their  judgment  to  the  Popes  and  councils.  A  belief  in 
Christ  and  his  work  of  redemption,  grounded  on  the  Scriptures  and  their 
evidences,  is  thus  made  useless,  unless  it  is  preceded  by  a  belief  in  Ro- 
man supremacy,  grounded  on  mere  surmises.  Christianity  is  removed 
from  its  broad  foundation,  to  place  the  mighty  fabric  upon  the  moveable 
sand  of  conjectural  meaning." 

The  first  passage  begs  the  question :  the  second  is  an  untruth,  for  we 
say  "the  Pope  and  his  Church"  only  remain  where  the  Redeemer  placed 
them,  we  place  them  nowhere:  and  there  is  no  surrender  of  judgment 
in  receiving  the  judicial  testimony  of  an  authorized  witness.  The  third 
passage  is  a  pitiable  misrepresentation,  containing  the  insinuation  of  an 
impossibility,  the  statement  of  an  untruth,  and  a  shifting  of  the  case ;  be- 
cause there  could  be  no  scripture  evidence  without  the  testimony  of  the 
Church ;  and  the  evidence  of  the  right  and  power  of  the  Church  to  give 
that  testimony,  rests  upon  plain  facts,  and  not  upon  mere  surmises ;  and 
the  question  is  not  concerning  Roman  Supremacy,  but  concerning  the  in- 
fallibility of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  The  concluding  passage,  as 
being  the  result  of  the  others,  contains  the  combination  of  their  faults. 

The  following  passage  upon  which  it  is  now  necessary  for  me  to 
remark,  winds  up  his  observations,  page  87 : 

' '  This  looks  more  like  love  of  self  than  of  Christ ;  more  like  ambi- 
tion than  charity.  The  title  to  infallibility  and  supremacy  being  at  the 
best  doubtful,  the  benefit  of  the  doubt  should  have  been  left  to  Christian 
liberty.  But  may  not  the  opposite  conduct  of  the  Roman  Church  have 
arisen  from  sincere  zeal  for  what  she  conceived  to  be  the  true  intention 
of  Christ?  Christian  candor  would  demand  this  construction,  were  it 
not  for  the  use  she  has  made  of  the  assumed  privilege :  yet  if  we  find 
that,  having  erected  herself  into  an  organ  of  heaven,  all  her  oracular 


474  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

decisions  have  invariably  tended  towards  the  increase  of  her  own 
power;  it  will  be  difficult  to  admit  the  purity  of  her  intentions." 

Before  I  commence  the  examination  of  his  succeeding  topics,  I  now 
feel  authorized  plainly  to  charge  White  and  his  American  sponsors  with 
having  grossly  imposed  upon  his  readers.  They  concur  with  him  in  as- 
serting that  the  claim  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  to  infallibility  in 
her  doctrinal  decisions  rests  only  on  the  text  adduced  in  page  83.  I  have 
before  given  my  reasons  for  the  introduction  of  the  word  only.  Now  this 
text  is  by  no  means  the  only  ground  upon  which  we  rely :  there  are  very 
many  prior  and  very  many  subsequent  facts  besides  that  of  the  promise 
made  by  the  Redeemer  on  this  occasion ;  and  there  are  several  other  con- 
siderations, a  few  of  which  I  shall  rather  allude  to,  than  enlarge  upon. 

The  first  ground  which  I  rest  upon,  is  the  very  nature  of  faith. 
Faith  is  a  divine  virtue  by  which  we  believe  what  God  teaches:  this 
belief  is  founded  upon  the  impossibility  of  a  mistake  on  the  part  of  the 
Omniscient  Being  who  makes  the  revelation;  and  the  impossibility  of 
deceit,  on  his  part,  as  being  essential  truth.  God  cannot  be  himself 
deceived,  nor  can  he  deceive  us ;  therefore  the  mind  rests  with  the  utmost 
certainty  of  truth  upon  his  declarations :  the  heavens  and  the  earth  may 
pass  away,  but  his  word  will  not  fail.  The  truth  of  God  being  the 
foundation  of  faith,  the  soul  cannot  admit  the  shadow  of  a  doubt  as 
to  the  truth  of  his  declaration;  faith  is  lost  at  the  very  instant  that 
any  deliberate  doubt  is  wilfully  entertained  in  the  soul.  Thus  it  is  not 
a  profession  of  faith  to  declare  that  I  think  it  highly  probable  that  there 
are  three  persons  in  one  God:  that  such  is  my  opinion,  but  that  I  may 
be  in  error:  that  possibly  there  is  but  one  person,  and  that  I  am  under 
a  delusion.  This  would  not  be  a  declaration  of  my  firm  belief  of  what 
God  had  taught,  but  a  declaration  of  what  was  my  own  individual  opin- 
ion. Thus  the  very  nature  of  faith  requiring  that  it  should  be  a  firm 
and  unshaken  belief  of  what  cannot  possibly  be  an  error ;  not  only  must 
the  God  who  reveals,  but  also  the  witness  who  gives  me  the  testimony 
or  the  revelation,  be  infallibly  identified  with  truth,  so  far  as  that  testi- 
mony is  concerned;  otherwise  I  might  be  deceived,  I  could  not  have 
certainty,  and  therefore  [would]  not  have  Faith.  Upon  this  view  of  the 
nature  of  Faith,  it  can  exist  only  in  those  souls  to  which  God  has  given 
special  and  individual  revelation  of  his  doctrine;  or  else,  if  he  made  a 
general  revelation  for  mankind,  and  appointed  teachers  of  that  revela- 
tion, he  must  have  made  their  testimony  an  infallible  evidence  of  his 
doctrine  to  those  whom  he  sent  them  to  instruct :  and  the  moment  it 
ceased  to  be  such  evidence,  the  foundation  of  Faith  was  altogether  re- 
moved. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO    WHITE  475 

Suffer  me  to  put  a  plain  case  to  which  this  principle  will  apply. 
It  is  now  nearly  eighteen  centuries  since  Christ  was  on  earth  and  gave 
his  revelation.     He  required ;  as  I  am  led  to  believe  that  it  was  essential 
to  that  Faith  which  is  necessary  for  salvation  [that  he  should  do]  ;  that 
all  who  heard  him  should  believe  truly  and  firmly  in  the  nature  of  God, 
and  of  the  Redeemer.     Had  I  [had]  the  happiness  to  live  at  that  period 
when  he  was  on  earth,  and  heard  from  his  lips  what  that  nature  was,  I 
would  firmly  believe  his  declaration.     I  have  not  had  that  consolation, 
but  a  Bible  which  I  am  told,  is  believed  to  contain  his  doctrine  upon 
this  head,  is  put  into  my  hands :  I  read,  and  an  Episcopalian  tells  me, 
that  it  clearly  teaches  that  there  is  a  Triune  God,  and  that  the  Redeemer 
is  a  God-man.     An  Unitarian  on  my  other  side  asks  me  where  that  is 
found    in    the    book,    and    tells    me    that    my    Episcopalian    friend 
mistakes   the   meaning   of  those   passages.       I    ask    the     Episcopalian 
upon   what    grounds    he   will     show     that    this     explanation    is    inot 
incorrect,  and  besides  the  texts  which  he  adduces,  he  tells  me  that  he 
can  show  that  in  the  several  ages  of  the  Church  they  were  explained 
as  he  now  explains  them:  the  Unitarian  asks  him  whether  those  men 
were  infallibly  correct  in  their  explanations;  and  whether  in  fact  it  be 
not  true  that  "the  Church  of  Hierusalem,  of  Antioch,  and  Alexandria, 
as  also  that  of  Rome,  have  erred  not  only  in  their  living  and  manner  of 
ceremonies,  but  also  in  matters  of  Faith,"    (art.  xixth,  of  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church).     And  further:  whether  it  be  not  true  "that  Laity 
and  Clergy,  learned  and  unlearned,  all  ages,  sects,  and  degrees  of  men, 
women  and  children  of  whole  Christendom,  (an  horrible  and  most  dread- 
ful thing  to  think)  have  been  at  once  drowned  in  abominable  idolatry, 
of  all  other  vices  most  detested  of  God,  and  most  damnable  to  man, 
and  that  by  the  space  of  eight  hundred  years  and  more." — {Homilies,  p. 
201.)     The    Episcopalian    acknowledges   that   it   is    a   fact   that   those 
Churches  did  err  in  matters  of  faith,  and  that  all  Christendom,  Clergy 
and  Laity  was  during  upwards   of   eight  hundred  years  drowned  in 
abominable  idolatry.     The  Unitarian  still  presses  him  to  know  whether 
he  or  his  Church  is  less  liable  to  error  than  all  Christendom,  and  if  he 
is  equally  liable  to  err,  what  assurance  has  he  that  he  is  not  now  in  error, 
when  he  asserts  that  there  is  a  Triune  God ;  and  how  is  he  certain  that  he 
is  not  guilty  of  damnable  idolatry  in  adoring  as  God,  Jesus  who  died 
upon  the  cross?     I  ask  whether  either  of  them  claims  to  be  infallibly 
correct,  and  perfectly  competent  to  inform  me  of  any  one  doctrine  with- 
out the  possibility  of  being  mistaken.     They  tell  me,  "No,  we  do  not 
claim  infallibility."     But  they  tell  me  to  read  and  to  decide  for  myself. 
Really  I  can  only  form  a  good  conjecture,  but  I  look  at  the  Episco- 


476  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

palian's  text,  I  John,  v,  7,  "For  there  are  three  that  bear  record  in 
Heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost :  and  these  three  are 
one."  The  Unitarian  assures  me  that  this  text  is  not  a  part  of  the 
divine  revelation,  but  is  an  interpolation.  This  the  Episcopalian  denies, 
— and  is  asked  by  his  opponent,  whether  he  is  infallibly  certain  that  it 
was  a  part  of  the  original  text.  Thus  at  my  very  outset,  I  am  left  at  a 
perfect  loss  not  only  to  know  the  meaning  of  phrases,  but  whether  the 
very  phrases  are  genuine.  And  in  this  situation,  I  feel  [that]  one  of 
two  results  must  be  the  consequence:  either  God  has  established  for  my 
guidance  some  witness  which  will  infallibly  lead  me  to  a  knowledge  of 
what  I  could  not  discover  with  certainty,  and  thus  I  must  have  an  infal- 
lible witness  of  doctrine ;  or  faith  is  not  attainable,  and  is  not  necessary 
for  salvation.  We  find  the  first  to  be  true  in  fact  as  well  as  in  theory. 
Our  Protestant  friends,  whilst  they  teach  the  necessity  of  Faith,  have 
by  denying  the  infallibility  of  the  Church,  created  in  their  societies 
the  impression  that  Faith  is  not  necessary,  nor  indeed  attainable.  It 
is  not  my  business  to  reconcile  contradictions :  but  the  very  nature  of 
Faith  implies  the  necessity  of  an  infallible  witness  of  revelation. 

We  also  find  another  ground  in  the  very  object  of  revelation.  That 
object  is  to  give  man  from  heaven,  easily  and  perfectly,  knowledge  to 
which  he  could  never  or  only  with  great  difficulty  attain  by  natural 
means,  and  perhaps  then  only  imperfectly.  Thus  the  communication  of 
divine  knowledge  upon  which  man  might  build  his  hopes  and  regulate 
his  conduct,  was  a  principal  object  of  the  divine  communications.  With- 
out revelation,  man  was  left  to  conjecture,  to  probability,  to  the  wander- 
ing of  his  private  judgment.  But  Avith  the  testimony  of  God  for  his 
guidance,  knowledge  succeeds  to  conjecture,  certainty  to  probability,  and 
public  and  unchanging  evidence  to  private  and  erring  judgment.  The 
truth  which  is  given  to  all,  becomes  the  great  rule  for  the  guidance  of  all ; 
and  the  perplexity  of  disquisition  being  removed,  the  minds  of  the  sage 
and  of  the  simple  are  equally  taught  by  their  common  Creator  and 
Father,  the  common  truths  respecting  his  nature  and  theirs,  and  their 
duties  which  are  the  results.  The  object  being  then  to  give  to  man  the 
certain  knowledge  of  heavenly  doctrine ;  that  could  be  attained  only  by 
some  mode  which  would  give  that  knowledge  with  infallible  certainty: 
and  this  could  be  effected  by  no  less  means  than  by  giving  to  us  the 
utmost  certainty  of  the  infallible  competency  of  the  witness.  Thus  if 
I  might  be  misled  or  deceived  by  the  witness  who  testifies  to  me  what 
is  the  doctrine,  one  of  the  great  objects  of  revelation  is  defeated. 

Suppose  I  am  certain  that  Christ  taught  the  doctrine  of  Heaven 
in  Jerusalem  on  the  day  of  his  ascension ;  of  what  avail  will  that  be  to 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  477 

me  unless  I  know  what  that  doctrine  was? — Suppose  I  am  convineeil 
that  the  book  which  is  in  my  hands  contains  the  expressions  which  he 
used ;  of  what  avail  is  that  to  me,  unless  I  know  what  he  meant  by  those 
expressions?  If  I  have  the, expressions  without  any  certainty  of  what 
ideas  he  intended  to  convey  by  them,  of  what  use  is  his  revelation  to  me? 
I  am  not  thereby  instructed.  AVhen  it  is  my  misfortune  to  live  at  a 
time  when  several  divisions  of  his  followers  are  contradicting  each  other 
as  to  the  meaning  of  every  phrase,  and  the  nature  of  every  doctrine,  if 
I  have  no  infallible  guide  to  lead  me  from  the  labyrinth,  how  shall  I 
be  extricated?  Of  what  use  to  me  is  an  unintelligible  book ?  The  great 
object  of  his  revelation,  viz.  a  certain  knowledge  of  what  he  taught,  is 
to  me  unattainable,  without  an  infallible  guide,  one  that  cannot  lead  me 
into  error;  and  because  they  have  been  persuaded  that  there  is  no  such 
guide  to  be  found,  millions  have  abandoned  in  utter  despair  and  dis- 
gust, all  inquiry  for  the  doctrines  of  Christ. 

Another  great  object  of  revelation  was  to  restrain,  and  to  humble 
the  pride  of  man's  understanding,  as  it  was  by  the  indulgence  of  this 
guide  he  fell,  and  as  its  exaltation  is  a  principal  obstacle  to  his  spiritual 
perfection:  so  far  from  being  attained,  this  object  is  counteracted  by 
the  principle  of  submitting  each  doctrine  to  the  private  judgment  of  indi- 
viduals. 

These  general  principles  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  for  the  knowl- 
edge of  revealed  truth,  for  the  existence  of  faith,  and  healing  the 
ravages  which  the  pride  of  intellect  has  made  in  the  human  soul,  it  is 
absolutely  necessary  that  the  witness  of  doctrine  should  be  infallible. 

Allow  me  to  expatiate  a  little  upon  the  application.  Let  me  now 
be  desirous  of  learning  what  God  has  revealed  at  any  time  to  any  portion 
of  the  human  race ;  clearly  I  can  obtain  that  knowledge  only  in  one  of 
two  ways,  either  by  the  testimony  of  God  himself,  or  by  some  other 
testimony.  Few  if  any  will  assert  that  God  himself  is  to  be  to  me  indi- 
vidually the  witness  of  what  he  has  formerly,  for  instance,  manifested 
to  Moses,  to  Abraham,  or  to  St.  Paul.  To  indulge  this  supposition  would 
be,  indeed,  to  assert  that  the  communications  of  heaven  to  one  indi- 
vidual, were  absolutely  useless  to  every  other.  Yet  there  have  been  sects 
in  the  reformed  Churches  that  held  the  principle ;  for  they  taught,  that 
the  only  evidence  which  we  can  have  of  revealed  truth  is  from  the  Spirit 
of  God  making  manifest  to  our  spirit  that  this  is  the  doctrine :  and  until 
we  are  prepared  to  come  to  this  point  fully  and  entirely,  it  is  not  possible 
to  adopt  the  maxim  that  the  private  judgment  of  each  individual  is  to 
be  the  rule  of  his  doctrine  of  faith.  I  shall  now  add  but  little  on  this 
subject. 


478  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

One  of  the  best  arguments  used  against  our  claim  to  Church  infal- 
libility is  the  alleged  contradiction  of  our  decisions  upon  doctrine;  for, 
say  our  opponents,  God  cannot  teach  contradictions.  We  admit  the  cor- 
rectness of  the  principle :  and  when  they  shew  us  in  fact  such  contradic- 
tory decisions  of  doctrine,  even  upon  one  single  point,  I  shall  cease  to 
be  a  Roman  Catholic;  I  will  publish  my  name,  retract  what  I  have 
written,  and  depart  from  your  communion.  Admitting  then  the  force  of 
the  principle,  I  find  in  all  the  individuals  as  well  as  Churches  that  claim 
this  evidence  of  the  Spirit,  palpable  doctrinal  contradiction;  and  I 
therefore  conclude,  that  what  has  thus  perpetually  misled,  cannot  be 
the  evidence  of  the  God  of  truth. 

I  must  then  find  some  other  testimony;  and  clearly  it  must  be  that, 
either  of  a  document,  or  of  an  individual,  or  of  a  body :  by  one  of  these 
I  must  be  taught  what  I  desire  to  know.  Suppose  a  document  is  handed 
to  me;  it  will  not  be  evidence  until  I  receive  sufficient  testimony  of  its 
nature,  and  value.  I  cannot  receive  this  from  the  Spirit  speaking  to  my 
spirit,  as  I  saw  before.  My  witness  must  be  either  an  individual  or  a 
body ;  and  unless  that  witness  can  give  me  infallible  certainty,  I  cannot 
have  perfect  assurance  of  what  God  has  taught;  and  without  this  per- 
fect assurance,  I  cannot  have  unshaken  belief,  which  alone  is  faith. 
Hence,  if  Faith  is  firm  and  unhesitating  belief  of  what  God  has  taught. 
it  must  be  founded  upon  infallible  certainty,  and  this  certainty  must 
rest  upon  infallible  evidence,  which  evidence  I  can  receive  only  from  an 
infallible  witness ;  this  infallible  witness  cannot  be  one  which  has  been 
detected  in  frequent  and  flagrant  contradictions,  it  cannot  be  the  private 
spirit  or  judgment  of  individuals.  Where  then  am  I  to  find  this  witness  ? 
I  shall  in  my  next  give  the  outline  of  our  doctrine  upon  this  head.  Not 
to  enter  into  the  reasoning  by  which  it  is  upheld ;  but  to  prove  the  truth 
of  the  assertion  which  I  made  that  White  and  his  associates  did  not  state 
our  case  fairly. 

Yours,  and  so  forth,  b.  c. 

LETTER  XXXIV 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Apr.  30,  1827. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends, — In  my  last  letter,  I  exhibited  to  you  an  outline  of  the 
reasons  which  show  that,  without  an  infallible  guide  to  the  knowledge 
of  doctrine,  it  is  impossible  to  have  faith;  and  that  the  great  objects  of 
revelation  would  be  unattainable.  I  proceed  now  to  show  you  that, 
whenever  revelation  was  given,  such  a  guide  was  pointed  out.     The  books 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO    WHITE  479 

of  Moses  contain  no  revelation  of  man's  immortality,  nor  of  his  ac- 
countability in  another  world,  for  the  actions  done  in  his  mortal  state. 
Yet  it  is  manifest,  that  the  people  of  Israel  did  believe  in  the  immortality 
of  the  soul,  and  in  a  future  judgment,  which  was  to  be  followed  by  a 
state  of  eternal  reward  and  of  eternal  punishment,  and  that  they  be- 
lieved it  as  a  revelation  made  by  God,  and  not  as  a  mere  discovery  of 
human  reasoning ;  also  that  they  believed  it  before  the  books  themselves 
were  written  by  Moses.  How  was  this  revelation  given?  How  was  it 
preserved  ?  What  was  the  evidence  of  its  infallible  truth  and  certainty  ? 
God  himself  gave  the  evidence  of  his  presence,  and  made  his  declara- 
tions to  the  patriarchs,  and  continued  those  manifestations  to  them  in 
the  midst  of  their  families,  who  were  frequently  witnesses  of  such  rev- 
elations, and  thus  during  the  period  which  preceded  the  days  of  Moses, 
there  existed  in  the  unanimous  testimony  of  the  heads  of  the  families 
of  Israel,  unquestionable  evidence  that  God  had  spoken  to  their  fathers, 
and  revealed  to  them  the  few  doctrines,  the  belief  of  which  he  required, 
and  gave  to  them  the  short  but  cheering  and  simple  promises  upon 
which  their  hopes  rested,  and  instituted  the  few  but  significant  cere- 
monies of  their  external  worship.  The  faithful  Israelite  received  the 
testimony  given  by  his  fathers,  admitted  and  preserved  by  his  kindred, 
and  in  that  testimony  saw  the  infallible  evidence  of  what  God  had  taught, 
promised,  and  instituted;  this  he  believed,  looked  for,  and  adhered  to. 
The  public  testimony  of  the  whole  body,  and  not  the  internal  inspiration 
of  his  own  mind,  or  the  discovery  of  his  private  judgment,  was  his  rule 
of  faith  and  practice,  before  the  days  of  Moses,  whether  he  wandered 
in  Canaan  or  served  in  Egypt. 

Thus,  from  the  fall  of  Adam  to  the  death  of  Joseph,  the  faithful 
adorers  of  the  true  God  were  never  bereft  of  a  living  witness,  to  whom 
God  had  spoken,  and  who,  in  the  midst  of  his  people,  testified  to  them 
the  communications  of  the  Most  High;  his  commission  to  announce  to 
them  the  will  of  God  was  placed  in  sufficient  evidence,  and  his  doc- 
trines agreed  exactly  with  those  of  his  predecessors ;  and  hence  there  was 
full  and  infallible  testimony  upon  which  faith  was  to  be  built.  Their 
eye  always  beheld  the  cloud  of  witnesses  by  day;  and  in  the  night,  the 
splendor  of  heavenly  guidance  led  them  in  the  path  to  their  salvation. 

From  the  death  of  Joseph  to  the  birth  of  Moses,  there  elapsed  about 
sixty  years ;  and  though  we  possess  little  documentary  testimony  to 
show  that,  during  this  period,  there  had  been  any  special  revelation 
given  to  continue  for  a  century  the  special  interference  of  heaven,  in  a 
miraculous  manner,  for  the  preservation  of  the  doctrine;  still,  from 
the  history  of  the  former,  and  of  the  subsequent  periods,  it  will  not  be 


480  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

a  very  outrageous  supposition  that  God  did  occasionally  and  specially 
make  a  renewed  disclosure  and  promise.  Josephus,  the  Jewish  historian, 
in  chapter  ix,  book  ii,  tells  us  that  Amran,  the  father  of  Moses,  had  a 
special  revelation  previous  to  his  son's  birth.  If,  then,  this  mode  which 
had  commenced  in  the  days  of  Adam,  continued  to  the  arrival  of  Moses, 
when  he  claimed  from  Pharao  the  liberation  of  his  brethren,  there  was 
no  moment  in  which  the  people  of  God  had  not  to  that  period  in  their 
sight  a  miraculously  authorized  witness,  who,  together  with  those  that 
heard  his  predecessors,  testified  with  infallible  certainty  the  nature  of 
the  doctrines  which  God  had  taught,  and  of  the  religious  institutions 
which  he  had  established.  If  a  century  elapsed  without  such  a  miracu- 
lously taught  commissioner,  there  existed  the  concordant  testimony  of 
the  heads  of  the  house  of  Israel,  teaching  what  had  been  given  to  them  as 
delivered  by  the  God  of  their  fathers.  Thus  to  the  period  of  the  public 
ministry  of  Moses,  faith  was  founded  upon  the  infallible  testimony  of 
a  public  witness,  not  upon  the  opinions  and  surmises,  and  conjectures  of 
the  private  judgment  of  individuals ;  and  thus  the  facts  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  religion  to  the  days  of  Moses,  are  in  perfect  accordance  with 
the  principles  which  I  have  exhibited  in  my  last  letter. 

It  will  not  be  disputed  that  during  his  life  time,  Moses  was,  after 
leading  out  the  people  of  Israel,  an  infallibly  correct  witness  of  the 
doctrines  of  heaven;  and  that  through  him  the  revelation  was  given  to 
the  multitude,  after  his  commission  had  been  fully  exhibited.  Nor  will 
it,  .1  suppose,  be  questioned,  that  the  preservation  of  the  law  then  given, 
and  its  explanation  was  committed  not  indiscriminately  to  the  individuals 
of  the  multitude,  but  to  a  special  tribunal  then  established  for  this 
amongst  other  purposes,  by  God  himself.  Nor  will  it  be  denied,  that 
this  tribunal  was  to  continue  as  long  as  the  law  itself  should  be  in  force, 
and  that  the  special  and  particular  manner  in  which  its  members  were 
to  be  selected  and  appointed  was  established  by  God  himself.  It  will 
also  be  conceded,  that  no  human  power  could  abrogate  what  the  divine 
power  established,  and  that  the  wisdom  of  God  foresaw  the  future  con- 
tingencies for  which  it  would  be  necessary  to  provide. 

The  Aaronitic  priesthood  was  established  by  God,  to  last  in  authority 
until  the  arrival  of  the  Messias,  at  which  period  the  Mosaic  law  was 
to  terminate.  It  was  established  and  confirmed  by  God,  that  the  high 
priest,  together  ivith  his  council,  was  to  have  a  final  appellate  juris- 
diction in  all  cases,  as  well  of  religion  as  of  rites,  and  other  matters 
of  the  Levitical  law.  Thus,  from  the  establishment  of  the  Aaronitic 
priesthood,  the  high  priest,  with  the   Sanhedrim,   was  the  witness  of 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  481 

doctrine ;  and  as  such  was  established  by  God  himself,   [who]   allowed 
no  appeal  from  their  decision. 

Let  us  now  suppose  a  case,  and  try  it  by  the  contradictory  principles 
of  our  opponents  and  our  own.     Suppose  an  individual  in  the  Jewish 
nation  finding  no  mention  in  the  books  of  Moses  of  a  future  life,  and  its 
state  of  rewards  and  punishments,  were  to  assert  that  this  book  written 
by  the  direction  of  God  himself  was  to  be  the  sole  rule  of  his  faith,  and 
that  his  own  private  judgment  was  to  direct  him  to  its  true  meaning: 
that  he  is  not  bound  to  believe  any  doctrine  which  he  does  not  read  as 
clearly  written  in  that  book,  or  evidently  deducible  therefrom ;  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul  and  of  a  future  state  of  reward 
and  punishment  is  not  clearly  written,  or  evidently  deducible  from  the 
books  of  Moses,  and  therefore  he  is  not  bound  to  believe  such  doctrine 
as  an  article  of  faith :  that  he  may  fairly  teach  what  he  is  convinced  is 
true;  and  therefore  he  teaches  this  doctrine  in  Israel,  that  man's  exis- 
tence terminates  at  death.     Suppose  this  man  to  be  a  ruler  of  a  syna- 
gogue.    The  high  priest  and  the  Sanhedrim  testify  that,  although  not 
contained  in  the  Pentateuch,  nor  perhaps  deducible  from  any  passage 
therein,  the  doctrine  of  immortality  and  future  rewards  and  punishments 
had  been  revealed  to  their  fathers  repeatedly  before  the  days  of  Moses, 
and  believed  before  and  since  the  revelation  of  Sinai;  that  they  have 
abundant  evidence  of  the  fact  of  the  revelation  of  this  doctrine,  though 
not  in  that  precise  book,  and  that  in  their  capacity  as  the  public  tribunal 
to  testify  doctrine  and  to  expound  the  law,  they  declare  that  the  immor- 
tality of  the  soul  is  a  doctrine  of  faith.     This  man  will  not  receive  their 
decision,  and  will  say,  if  they  are  not  a  tribunal  which  can  testify  with 
infallible  certainty  of  truth,  they  might  err ;  if  they  might  err,  he  may 
perhaps  be  right,  and  in  adopting  their  decision,  he  might  not  be  led 
to  truth,  but  to  falsehood.     Yet  God  constituted  this  a  supreme  tribunal, 
to  whose  decisions  he  commanded  obedience  under  the  penalty  of  death ; 
are  we  then  to  say  that  God  commanded  that  a  man  should  be  put  to 
death  for  not  perhaps  abandoning  the  truth  ?  because  such  is  the  incon- 
sistency, if  the  tribunal  be  not  infallible.     All  this  difficulty  and  ab- 
surdity, however,  vanish  upon  the  simple  supposition,  that  the  Deity 
constituted  that  tribunal  the  infallible  witness  of  his  doctrine ;  and  such 
was  the  light  in  which  this  great  council  was  viewed  by  the  Jewish 
people,  and  therefore  it  was  not  only  made  the  witness  of  the  ancient 
revelations,  which  it  had  received  by  traditionary  evidence,  but  also 
of  the  written  revelation  given  by  Moses,  and  the  judicial  tribunal  to 
explain  the  meaning  of  both  in  all  cases  of  doubt ;  and  they  who  broke 


482  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

away  from  its  communion,  were  not  considered  to  be  in  the  true  faith  of 
the  law  of  ]\Ioses. 

Let  us  for  a  moment  dwell  upon  this  case.  Would  God  have  estab- 
lished this  tribunal  to  teach,  and  commanded  that  its  decisions  should 
be  received  under  penalty  of  death,  if  he  foresaw  that  it  would  or  could 
lead  into  error,  in  place  of  guiding  to  truth?  Is  not  his  command  to 
obey  its  decisions,  considered  in  connexion  with  his  essential  connexion 
with  truth,  a  guarantee  to  those,  to  whom  the  precept  is  given,  that  the 
decision  will  be  infallibly  true?  If,  in  obeying  the  precept  by  receiv- 
ing the  decision,  we  were  led  into  error,  would  not  God  be  the  author  of 
that  error  ?  Will  common  sense  or  religion  permit  us  to  disobey  the  pre- 
cept of  our  Creator  requiring  our  submission,  or  permit  us  to  charge  him 
with  having  forced  us  to  embrace  error  in  obeying  his  law !  It  cannot 
be  error.     It  must  infallibly  be  truth. 

Forgetting  for  a  moment  the  fact,  that  God  commanded  this  sub- 
mission to  the  decisions  of  the  Jewish  council,  and  supposing  no  such 
precept  to  exist,  and  no  such  power  to  be  vested  in  this  body,  how  was 
this  ruler  of  the  sjniagogue,  who  taught  that  man  did  not  survive  the 
grave,  to  be  corrected  ?  Or,  if  he  was  right,  how  was  that  ruler  who  con- 
tradicted him,  and  taught  the  erroneous  doctrine  of  the  immortality  of 
the  soul  to  be  corrected?  Or  how  was  an  inquirer  after  truth  to  know 
which  doctrine  God  had  revealed,  for  he  could  not  have  revealed  them 
both?  If  the  Church  of  Israel  had  not  in  her  high  priest  and  council 
an  infallible  witness  of  God's  revelation,  how  was  that  revelation  to  be 
known?  These  are  difficulties  which  to  me  are  perfectly  insoluble. 
They  may,  perhaps,  be  easily  and  satisfactorily  explained  by  Blanco 
White,  or  the  Rev.  William  Hawley.  I  feel  convinced,  that  with- 
out an  infallible  witness  of  doctrine,  there  is  no  rational  ground  for 
faith;  and  I  see,  in  fact,  that  from  the  day  God  spoke  to  Adam,  down 
to  the  arrival  of  the  Messias,  such  a  witness  was  found,  in  the  line  of 
Patriarchs  to  Moses,  and  in  the  Sanhedrim  to  Jesus  Christ.  By  this 
testimony,  the  doctrines  of  revelation,  written  and  unwritten,  have  been 
preserved  and  presented  to  the  world.  This  was  the  doctrine  of  the 
Jewish  Church,  at  the  period  of  Christ's  arrival,  and  so  far  from  mark- 
ing it  down  as  erroneous,  he  confirmed  and  approved  it.  He  called  the 
Sanhedrim  hypocrites ;  but  he  declared  that  they  sat  upon  the  chair  of 
Moses:  he  reproved  their  works,  and  admonished  the  people  not  to 
imitate  their  conduct ;  but  he  charged  the  same  people  to  hold  their  doc- 
trines of  faith  and  to  obey  their  decisions.  And  if  we  believe  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  inspired  the  Evangelist  St.  John  to  write  his  Gospel,  we  have 
the  distinct  testimony  of  that  divine  Spirit  {John  xi,  49,  50,  51),  that 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO    WHITE  483 

Caiphas  did  in  virtue  of  his  ofifice,  give  a  correct  doctrinal  decision, 
though,  with  a  bad  intention,  as  if  to  show  to  the  world  that  the  crimi- 
nality of  an  unworthy  head  would  not  create  an  untrue  testimony,  in  a 
tribunal  which  was  even  upon  the  point  of  losing  its  commission,  and 
when  the  very  being,  whose  appearance  was  to  be  cotemporary  with 
its  decline,  was  gathering  the  members  of  the  body  which  was  to  be 
substituted  under  a  new  jurisdiction  in  its  stead. 

But  the  good  gentlemen,  who  charge  us  with  having  no  grounds  for 
our  doctrine  of  infallibility,  either  never  knew,  or  affect  to  forget,  that 
the  Christian  religion  is  not  a  system  which  was  put  together  by  human 
discovery,  but  one  which  was  framed  by  the  Saviour,  and  then  delivered 
to  his  disciples  to  be  preserved.  In  place,  therefore,  of  seeking  for  texts 
upon  which  disputes  might  be  raised  (for  ingenuity  can  raise  them  at 
will  upon  the  plainest  expressions)  we  should  look  to  the  facts  whose 
existence  is  uncontroverted,  and  from  which  the  truth  can  be  with 
facility  deduced.  It  is  plain  that  Jesus  Christ  was  an  infallibly  correct 
witness  of  the  true  doctrine,  and  that  his  infallible  correctness  was  the 
only  basis  of  the  faith  of  his  disciples,  and  this  infallibility  being  re- 
moved, their  faith  could  have  no  basis.  If  he  required  faith  from  the 
persons  who  never  saw  or  heard  him,  he  must  have  given  them  an  equally 
good  basis  for  their  belief.  Hence,  when  he  sent  his  Apostles  to  teach 
his  doctrine  to  those  who  had  neither  seen  nor  heard  himself,  he  empow- 
ered them  to  work  miracles,  that  they  might  thereby  give  evidence  that 
they  taught  truth  with  infallible  certainty ;  thus  their  disciples  had  the 
evidence  of  infallible  guides.  Upon  what  principle  could  other  nations 
or  succeeding  generations  be  required  to  give  similar  assent  of  faith  with- 
out equally  firm  ground  ?  The  principle  of  the  necessity  of  such  a  guide 
is  recognized  by  us,  and  we  exhibit  now  the  fact  of  its  existence. 
Amongst  the  doctrines  taught  to  those  disciples  by  preaching,  before  a 
single  line  of  the  Gospel  was  written,  was  that  the  doctrines  of  Jesus 
were  to  be  taught  by  virtue  of  a  commission  of  the  Saviour  given  to  the 
Apostles,  to  be  communicated  to  others,  and  perpetuated  to  the  end  of 
the  world,  in  order  that  men  might  at  all  times  be  taught  those  doctrines 
by  proper  authority;  and  that  the  Saviour  declared,  that  whosoever 
heard  them,  heard  him,  and  whosoever  despised  them  despised  him; 
and  that  he  promised  to  them  the  Spirit  of  truth,  who  would  bring  to 
their  minds  all  things  whatsoever  he  had  taught  them,  and  would  perfect 
the  revelation,  so  that  they  should  be  witnesses  to  him;  and  that  as  he 
sent  them  to  teach  all  nations,  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  he  had 
commanded,  so  he  declared  he  would  be  with  them  all  days  to  the  end  of 
the  world ;  and  that  the  Spirit  of  truth  should  abide  with  them  always ; 


484  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

and  that  the  gates  of  hell  should  never  prevail  against  that  Church  which 
he  built  upon  Simon,  the  son  of  Jonas,  whose  name  he  changed  to  Rock 
or  Peter,  and  to  whom  he  gave  a  memorable  assurance,  that  he  had 
prayed  for  him  that  his  faith  should  not  fail ;  and  to  whom  he  gave  in 
charge,  when  he  should  be  converted  after  his  fall,  for  Satan  desired  to 
sift  him  as  wheat,  that  he  should  confirm  his  brethren ;  and  that  he  also 
gave  to  him,  having  previously  required  a  declaration  of  greater  love, 
a  charge  to  feed  his  lambs,  and  to  feed  his  sheep,  as  he  had  promised  to 
give  to  him  the  keys,  or  power  of  vicegerent,  as  was  designated  in  eastern 
courts,  by  bearing  the  keys  in  the  palace ;  what  he  should  bind  on  earth 
should  be  bound  in  heaven,  and  what  he  would  loose  on  earth  would  be 
loosed  in  heaven.  That  the  Apostles  testified  this,  was  evident  to  the 
first  Christians ;  and,  therefore,  the  fact  of  the  authority  to  teach  being 
in  them  and  in  their  successors,  the  pastors  of  that  Church  built  upon 
Peter,  was  evident  to  those  Christians;  and,  indeed  they  had  no  other 
mode  of  knowing  the  doctrines  of  revelation,  but  by  such  teaching. 
Surely,  then,  there  was  no  hunting  for  the  evidence  of  this  in  texts  which 
as  yet  had  not  been  written.  They  saw  the  Holy  Ghost  descend  upon 
those  Apostles;  they  witnessed  their  miracles;  they  recognized  them  as 
infallible  witnesses  of  the  truth ;  they  saw  them  associate  others  to  their 
commission ;  giving  them  a  part  in  their  ministry ;  making  them  co-wit- 
nesses ;  and  when  a  discussion  arose  as  to  what  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  was 
upon  certain  points,  they  assembled  those  associates  together  with  them- 
selves, and  instead  of  telling  the  disputants  to  read  and  judge  for  them- 
selves, they  made  a  judicial  decision  under  the  guidance  of  that  Holy 
Ghost  that  was  given  to  remain  always,  for  the  purpose  of  leading  them 
into  all  truth;  and  having  testified  what  the  doctrine  was,  they  com- 
manded their  decision  to  be  followed.  The  Apostles  thus  exhibited  the 
tribunal  of  the  pastors  of  the  Church  by  the  institution  of  Christ,  and 
under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  [as]  an  infallible  guide  to  lead 
mankind  to  a  knowledge  of  the  doctrines  of  Christ,  to  the  very  end  of 
the  world.  As  yet,  the  New  Testament  did  not  exist ;  portions  of  it  were 
occasionally  written,  but  it  never  was  compiled  as  a  summary  of  the 
Christian  doctrine;  and,  although  all  its  contents  are  true,  yet  it  was 
not  compiled  to  be  the  repertory  of  all  the  revealed  truths  of  the  new 
law,  nor  was  it  to  supersede  that  mode  of  teaching  established  by  Christ, 
and  made  evident  by  the  Apostles;  and  certainly  the  Church  was  not 
to  have  less  power,  because  a  portion  of  its  doctrine  and  history  was 
committed  to  writing. 

Nay,  more,  there  were  several  spurious  books  published,  purport- 
ing to  be  the  revealed  doctrine  of  Christ;  and  it  was  only  by  the 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO   WHITE  485 

authority  of  the  Church  that  the  early  Christians  were  enabled  to  draw 
the  line  of  separation  between  that  which  was  written  under  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  that  which  was  not.  If  that  Church  was 
not  an  infallibly  correct  guide,  she  might  have  rejected  what  was  gen- 
uine, and  given  the  faithful  as  the  doctrine  of  God,  the  invention  of 
man.  Thus,  if  the  Church  was  not  infallible,  we  have  no  infallible  cer- 
tainty at  the  present  day  that  the  New  Testament  is  the  Scripture  of 
God. 

Reason,  the  example  of  the  Old  Law,  and  the  testimony  of  the 
Apostles,  and  of  the  intermediate  ages,  prove  to  us  the  infallibility  of 
the  Church,  as  they  proved  it  to  the  first  Christians,  before  the  New 
Testament  was  written;  and  that  book  itself  could  not  be  to  us  the 
evidence  of  revelation,  if  the  witness  from  which  we  receive  it  was 
fallible.  Thus  there  always  was,  and  ever  will  be  an  infallible  witness  of 
doctrine  on  earth.  Mr.  White  and  his  coadjutors  were  then  guilty  of 
gross  misrepresentation,  arising  either  from  ignorance,  or  some  less 
creditable  cause,  when  they  stated  that  our  whole  proof  lay  in  a  passage 
which  White  endeavors  to  render  obscure,  that  he  may  destroy  the  evi- 
dence which  it  contains,  if  he  can  bewilder  his  readers.  I  have  not 
here  argued  to  maintain  the  doctrine,  but  [have]  exhibited  how  grossly 
the  flocks  of  the  holy  alliance  are  deceived,  if  they  believe  White  and 
their  pastors,  as  to  what  our  arguments  are. 

Yours,  and  so  forth,  b.  c. 

LETTER  XXXV 

Charleston,  S.  C,  May  7,  1827. 
To  the  Boman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends, — Having  seen  that  White  stated  unfairly  and  imper- 
fectly the  case  of  our  claim  to  Church  infallibility,  and  that  he  with 
still  more  effrontery  asserted  that  he  gave  our  arguments  in  its  support ; 
I  now  come  to  examine  the  sequel  of  his  remarks  upon  this  topic.  He 
says  in  pages  86  and  87: 

"The  liberty  which,  upon  the  supposition  most  favorable  to  Rome, 
Christ  has  granted  to  believers  in  his  Gospel,  the  Pope  and  his  Church 
most  positively  deny  them.  Placing  themselves  between  mankind  and 
the  Redeemer,  they  allow  those  only  to  approach  him,  who  first  make 
a  full  surrender  of  their  judgment  to  Popes  and  Councils.  A  belief  in 
Christ  and  his  work  of  redemption,  grounded  on  the  Scriptures  and  their 
evidences,  is  thus  made  useless,  unless  it  is  preceded  by  a  belief  in  Roman 
supremacy,  grounded  on  mere  surmises.     Christianity  is  removed  from 


486  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

its  broad  foundation,  to  place  the  mighty  fabric  upon  the  moveable 
sand  of  a  conjectural  meaning." 

Here  is  one  of  the  most  extravagant  and  contradictory  assertions 
which  I  have  ever  met  with,  viz.  that  Christ  granted  to  believers  in 
the  Gospel  the  liberty  of  believing  or  rejecting  what  he  taught.  The 
Pope  and  the  Church  do  indeed  deny  that  he  granted  any  such  liberty, 
and  they  therefore  most  positively  deny  the  truth  of  White's  assertion 
that  he  did  grant  such  liberty;  but  they  do  not  deny  to  any  man  the 
exercise  of  that  liberty  which  Christ  bestowed:  the  question  is  concern- 
ing the  fact  of  its  bestowal.  This  man  every  where  assumes  as  true  that 
which  is  untrue,  and  whose  truth  is  denied ;  and  then  has  the  effrontery 
to  state  that  he  has  made  the  supposition  most  favorable  to  what  he  is 
endeavoring  to  overthrow  by  his  falsehood.  The  Roman  Catholic  doc- 
trine is,  ''Christ  did  not  leave  man  at  liberty  to  reject  the  doctrine  of 
infallibility."  White's  assertion  is,  "The  supposition  that  you  are  at 
liberty  to  adopt  the  doctrine  of  infallibility  is  the  most  favorable  to 
Rome."  No,  my  friends,  that  supposition  which  is  most  favorable, 
is  that  which  is  true,  and  that  is,  "Christ  did  not  leave  men  at  liberty 
to  reject  or  to  adopt  his  doctrines  at  their  caprice,  he  bound  them  to 
believe  what  he  teaches  by  the  testimony  of  his  Infallible  Church." 
That  Church  existed  before  the  Gospel ;  men  know  nothing  of  the  Gospel 
except  through  her  testimony ;  destroy  her  infallibility  and  the  evidence 
of  the  Gospel  is  lost.  Thus  St.  Augustine  said  fourteen  centuries  ago, 
"I  would  not  believe  the  Gospel  except  for  the  testimony  of  the  Church." 

I  cannot  quarrel  with  White's  English,  as  he  is  a  foreigner;  but  I 
do  not  well  understand  whom  he  means  by  themselves  in  the  second 
clause,  "placing  themselves  between  mankind  and  the  Redeemer."  If  he 
means  the  Apostles  and  their  successors  in  authority,  Christ  placed  them 
between  himself  and  mankind,  when  he  constituted  them  his  witnesses  to 
mankind,  when  he  gave  them  as  teachers  to  mankind,  * '  teaching  them  to 
observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you."  "You  shall  be 
to  me  witnesses  ....  to  the  ends  of  the  earth."  St.  Paul  and  the 
Apostles  themselves  took  this  station  as  being  appointed  thereto  by 
heaven.  The  people  who  believed,  considered  them  as  the  ministers  of 
God,  ambassadors  between  the  Redeemer  and  mankind.  What  does 
Bishop  Kemp  say  of  himself?  Does  he  not  place  himself  between  man- 
kind and  the  Redeemer  ?  The  Catholic  Church  never  placed  him  there ; 
nor  did  it  so  place  any  other  member  of  the  holy  assailants.  Yet  they 
place  themselves  there.  Indeed  they  do  not  ask  submission  to  the  Church, 
that  is  the  Popes  and  Councils  which  succeed  to  Peter  and  his  brethren ; 
but  they  ask  a  full  surrender  to  some  body  or  individual  which  began 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO   WHITE  487 


by  denying  to  the  whole  Catholic  world  what  it  arrogates  to  itself,  a 
knowledge  of  the  revelation  of  God.  They  destroy  the  power  of  the  Pope, 
that  each  teacher  might  exercise  a  greater  dominion  over  the  minds  of 
his  hearers  than  the  Pope  and  Council  can  exercise  in  the  Church. 

A  belief  in  Christ  and  his  redemption,  grounded  on  the  Scriptures, 
without  grounding  those  Scriptures  upon  any  testimony,  is  indeed  what 
White  in  page  22  describes.  "Was  then  Christianity  nothing  but  a 
groundless  fabric,  the  world  supported  by  the  elephant,  the  elephant 
standing  upon  the  tortoise?"  The  belief  in  Christ  rests  on  the  Scrip- 
tures: upon  what  do  the  Scriptures  rest?  Upon  fallible  testimony,  and 
then  they  are  no  security,  or  upon  infallible  testimony,  and  then 
they  are  security;  but  it  is  the  Church  which  testifies  to  them, 
and  therefore  she  is  infallible.  It  is  ridiculous  to  talk  of  rational  belief, 
founded  upon  a  document  for  whose  sufficiency  I  have  not  proper  evi- 
dence. The  value  of  the  Scripture  is  only  as  great  as  that  of  the  tes- 
timony by  which  it  is  established;  and  that  witness  is  the  Church. 
There  is  but  one  mode  of  evading  the  force  of  this  reasoning,  and  that 
mode  Bishop  Kemp's  associates  of  other  Churches  take,  by  making  the 
witness  of  Scripture  the  private  inspiration  of  each  individual,  or  the 
Holy  Ghost  speaking  within  him ;  thus  they  make  the  individual  mem- 
bers infallible,  and  deny  infallibility  to  their  aggregate :  what  each  pos- 
sesses alone,  is  lost  to  the  whole  when  they  assemble,  because  though 
the  Holy  Ghost  will  guide  each  separately  to  the  infallible  knowledge 
of  the  word  of  God  and  its  meaning ;  yet  when  from  their  combination 
the  Church  is  formed,  the  Holy  Spirit  will  not  lead  that  Church  infallibly 
to  the  same  knowledge.  This  is  indeed  an  extraordinary  mode  of  evad- 
ing the  conclusion;  separately  and  singly,  even  though  you  contradict 
each  other,  you  are  guided  by  the  Spirit  of  Truth;  but  if  you  join 
together  and  agree,  you  are  fallible  and  liable  to  error ! ! !  For  the  alter- 
native must  never  be  taken,  viz,  The  Church  is  not  liable  to  error. 
Bishop  Kemp  very  modestly  renounces  individual  infallibility  and 
Church  infallibility,  and  thus  the  individuals  and  the  Church  are  liable 
to  err  in  pointing  out  the  word  of  God,  and  in  discovering  its  meaning ; 
and  therefore  a  belief  in  Christ  and  his  work  of  redemption  grounded 
upon  the  Scriptures,  and  their  evidences,  is  thus  made  not  indeed  use- 
less but  impossible;  for  there  is  no  evidence,  and  to  ground  the  belief 
upon  want  of  evidence,  would  be  indeed  an  absurdity.  We  may  find 
ground  for  this  evidence  upon  infallibility,  and  this  we  ground  not 
upon  Roman  Supremacy,  or  mere  surmises,  but  upon  irrefragable  and 
convincing  proofs — and  we  thus  place  the  mighty  fabric  of  Christianity, 
not  upon  the  moveable  sand  of  fallible  opinion,  or  the  notion  of  private 


488  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

individual  inspiration,  but  upon  the  broad  ground  of  that  foundation 
upon  which  Christ  placed  it,  when  he  fixed  as  its  basis  a  rock  which  the 
world  must  always  behold,  and  against  which  hell  can  never  prevail. 

White  proceeds,  page  87 : 

' '  This  looks  more  like  love  of  self  than  of  Christ ;  more  like  ambition 
than  charity.  The  title  of  infallibility  and  supremacy  being  at  the  best 
doubtful,  the  benefit  of  the  doubt  should  have  been  left  to  Christian 
liberty.  But  may  not  the  opposite  conduct  of  the  Roman  Church  have 
arisen  from  sincere  zeal  for  what  she  conceived  to  be  the  true  intention 
of  Christ?  Christian  candor  would  demand  this  construction,  were  it 
not  for  the  use  she  has  made  of  the  assumed  privilege:  yet  if  we  find 
that,  having  erected  herself  into  an  organ  of  heaven,  all  her  oracular 
decisions  have  invariably  tended  towards  the  increase  of  her  own  power ; 
it  will  be  difficult  to  admit  the  purity  of  her  intentions." 

This  mode  of  examining  a  question  concerning  a  fact  of  revealed 
religion  is  perfectly  ridiculous:  since  the  true  question  is  not  what 
"it  looks  like,"  but  whether  "it  is  a  divine  institution."  Moreover 
the  assertion  is  not  true,  for  the  love  of  Christ  is  the  preservation  of 
his  doctrine,  "he  that  loves  me  will  keep  my  word,"  and  there  can  be 
no  mode  of  preserving  his  doctrine,  save  by  proper  testimony,  there  can 
be  for  this  no  proper  testimony,  save  that  which  will  lead  us  without 
danger  of  error  to  its  knowledge.  Christ  himself  points  out  that  infal- 
lible witness  in  that  Church  which  he  built  upon  Peter,  and  the  adher- 
ence to  his  institution  is  the  best  evidence  of  his  love. 

Charity  leads  us  to  seek  what  is  for  the  welfare  of  our  neighbor; 
the  preservation  of  that  truth  which  will  bring  him  to  eternal  life,  is 
the  best  mode  of  seeking  his  welfare.  Ambition  is  an  inordinate  desire 
of  power  to  which  we  have  no  claim :  the  testifying  what  we  have  received 
from  others  for  the  purpose  of  being  transmitted  by  our  testimony  to 
our  successors,  the  assurance  that  we  faithfully  discharge  this  great 
duty,  the  humble  belief  that  Chl^st  will  fulfil  his  promise  of  not  per- 
mitting error  to  triumph  over  that  testimony,  and  thereby  destroy  that 
evidence,  is  not  ambition.  Much  more  does  it  savor  of  ambition  in  an  in- 
dividual to  dogmatize  against  this  testimony,  and  to  declare  in  opposition 
to  ages  and  nations  united,  that  his  private  judgment  is  better  able  to 
know  what  Christ  taught  almost  eighteen  centuries  before  White  was  born. 

It  is  not  true  that  the  title  to  infallibility,  and  supremacy  is  doubt- 
ful :  and  there  being  no  doubt,  the  benefit  of  the  doubt  could  not  be  given 
to  Christian  liberty.  But  what  is  meant  by  Christian  liberty  in  this 
place?  Liberty  to  believe  or  to  disbelieve  according  to  your  caprice. 
Call  you  this  faith?     Liberty  to  be  carried  to  and  fro  by  every  gust  of 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO    WHITE  489 

opinion.  Call  you  this  a  blessing?  Liberty  of  contradiction,  so  that  I 
might  to-day  say  that  Christ  taught  the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence, 
and  to-morrow  assert  that  he  did  not.  Call  you  this  knowledge  ?  Thus 
it  is,  that  sounds  delude.  Christian  liberty  properly  understood  means 
that  man  is  free  where  God  has  not  bound  him :  but  where  God  declares 
what  is  his  will,  man  is  no  longer  free,  he  is  at  that  moment  bound  to 
believe ;  knowledge  is  a  blessing,  faith  is  a  privilege,  it  is  the  communi- 
cation of  heavenly  wisdom,  man  should  receive  it  as  his  best  boon,  as 
the  dearest  pledge  of  his  teacher's  affection.  How  inestimable  a  benefit 
is  it  to  be  taught  by  God !  How  great  the  misfortune  to  be  certain  that 
he  spoke  for  our  information,  but  to  be  uncertain  of  what  he  said !  Yet 
this  is  the  Christian  liberty  for  which  the  holy  alliance  would  contend! 
White  again  unfairly  changes  his  ground  when  instead  of  examining 
the  evidence  of  the  fact,  he  speculates  upon  the  motive  of  the  Church 
in  assuming  that  she  is  infallible,  and  that  her  head  is  supreme : — and 
because  she  does  not  decide  that  she  has  not  the  power  which  she  received 
from  God,  he  would  have  us  conclude  that  she  has  it  not,  and  that  she 
knows  herself  to  be  without  it.  Thus  according  to  this  new  system  of 
logic,  if  a  judge  declares  that  he  holds  the  commission  of  his  office  the 
declaration  is  evidence  of  his  ambition,  his  ambition  is  evidence  of  his 
unfitness,  and  his  unfitness  is  proof  that  he  has  no  valid  commission; 
if  he  states  that  he  has  no  commission,  then  his  word  is  good,  and 
because  he  has  no  commission  he  is  to  be  believed.  This  would  be  a 
convenient  argument  for  every  culprit  to  use  against  every  judge.  Sup- 
pose one  of  his  Presbyterian  compeers  told  Bishop  Kemp,  that  his  claim 
of  holding  a  higher  order  than  that  of  a  Presbyter,  looked  more  like 
ambition  than  charity:  what  would  be  his  answer?  Suppose  he  was 
told  that  his  title  was  at  best  doubtful,  and  the  benefit  of  the  doubt  ought 
to  be  left  to  Christian  liberty ;  how  would  he  reason  with  his  old  and  new 
associate? — Suppose  the  honest  Quaker  was  to  tell  the  whole  collection 
of  our  reverend  assailants  that  the  very  use  which  they  make  of  their 
assumed  privilege  is  proof  of  their  fraud,  and  does  not  argue  in  favor 
of  their  zeal  for  what  they  conceive  to  be  the  true  intention  of  Christ ; 
for  they  erect  themselves  into  an  organ  of  heaven ;  and  all  their  oracular 
decisions  invariably  tend  towards  the  increase  of  their  own  power: 
what  would  the  good  gentlemen  retort?  Is  not  this  charge  daily  made 
upon  them?  Are  they  not  told  that  they  do  these  things  for  the  sake 
of  filthy  lucre?  And  do  they  not  assert  that  the  persons  who  thus 
charge  them  are  imps  of  hell,  foes  of  the  Gospel,  enemies  of  Christ,  liars 
and  blasphemers? 


490  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

I  shall  not  give  such  names  to  those  who  bestow  them,  but  I  should 
like  to  know  their  answer. 

White  now  abandons  every  semblance  of  argument,  and  merely  has 
recourse  to  prejudice  for  his  protection,  page  87. 

"By  comparing  the  articles  of  the  Church  of  Rome  with  those  of 
the  Church  of  England,  we  shall  find  that  the  points  of  difference  are 
chiefly  these :  tradition,  transubstantiation,  the  number  of  sacraments, 
purgatory,  indulgences,  and  the  invocation  of  saints.  Such  are  the  main 
questions  on  doctrine,  at  issue  between  the  two  Churches;  for  the  dif- 
ferences about  free-will  and  justification  might,  I  believe,  be  settled 
without  much  difficulty,  by  accurately  defining  the  language  on  both 
sides.  Now  I  will  not  assume  the  truth  of  the  Protestant  tenets  on  these 
points,  nor  enter  into  arguments  against  those  of  the  Roman  Church; 
my   present   concern   is   with   their  tendency." 

Their  tendency  is  not  the  question  for  a  Divine,  but  their  foundation 
in  the  revealed  truth  of  Heaven.  There  are  a  variety  of  other  differences 
which  he  passes  over,  but  to  magnify  or  to  adduce  which  is  not  my 
object.  I  shall  always  be  happy  to  find  our  differences  diminish.  How- 
ever, merely  to  show  how  little  this  man's  statements  respecting  doc- 
trine are  to  be  depended  upon ;  the  doctrines  of  purgatory  and  of  indul- 
gences, upon  which  he  lays  so  much  stress,  rest  altogether  for  their  basis 
upon  our  doctrine  of  justification.  And  certainly  the  question  whether 
an  Unitarian  or  a  Roman  Catholic  commits  a  sin  in  feeding  a  hungry 
pagan,  or  clothing  a  shivering  Greek,  through  mere  motives  of  humanity, 
is  one  on  w^hich  there  is  more  than  a  mere  verbal  difference  between  the 
Church  of  England  and  ours.  The  Church  of  England  as  does  also 
that  of  Bishop  Kemp,  and  indeed  the  Churches  of  all  our  assailants 
teach,  that  this  act  has  in  it  the  nature  of  sin ;  our  Church  teaches  that 
it  has  not  in  it  the  nature  of  sin,  but  the  nature  of  virtue,  page  88. 

' '  To  begin  with  tradition :  let  us  observe  how  broad  a  field  is  opened 
to  the  exercise  of  infallibilitj^,  by  the  supposition  that  an  indefinite  num- 
ber of  revealed  truths  were  floating  down  the  stream  of  ages,  uncon- 
signed  to  the  inspired  records  of  Christianity.  The  power  of  inter- 
preting the  word  of  God  by  a  continual  light  from  above,  might  be 
confined  by  the  Scriptures  themselves,  as  it  would  be  difficult  to  force 
doctrines  on  the  belief  of  Christians,  of  which  the  very  name  and  subject 
seem  to  have  been  unknown  to  the  inspired  writers.  Divine  tradition, 
the  first-born  of  infallibility,  removes  this  obstacle;  and,  so  doing,  in- 
creases the  influence  of  Rome  to  an  indefinite  extent.  I  do  not  here 
contend  that  to  place  tradition  upon  the  same  footing  with  the  Scriptures, 


two  CALUMNIES    OF  J.   BLANCO   WHITE  491 

is  an  error ;  but  whether  error  or  truth,  it  is  certainly  power  in  the  hands 
of  the  Roman  Church. ' ' 

I  before  remarked  that  White  and  his  associates  have  disclaimed 
the  use  of  argument:  therefore  I  have  here  nothing  to  refute,  but  I 
have  much  to  correct. 

The  supposition  which  he  makes  is  gratuitous  and  untrue.  When 
he  undertook  to  exhibit  what  tradition  was,  he  ought  to  have  been  honest. 
Tradition  is  the  testimony  of  the  revealed  truth  which  exists  in  customs, 
documents,  and  other  evidence  besides  the  sacred  Scriptures,  which 
evidence  is  found  in  every  age  of  the  Church,  and  in  every  nation;  it 
is  then,  not  "an  indefinite  number  of  revealed  truths  floating  down  the 
stream  of  ages,"  but  it  is  the  testimony  of  the  whole  Church,  exhibiting 
what  is  revealed  truth.  Thus  the  universal  custom  of  all  the  Churches 
in  every  age,  to  pay  the  homage  of  adoration  to  the  Redeemer,  is  not 
consigned  to  the  inspired  records  of  Christianity,  but  is  testified  by  other 
records  of  Christianity ;  and  joined  to  the  undoubted  principle  of  Chris- 
tians in  every  age  and  every  nation,  that  God  alorie  should  he  adored,  is 
traditionary  proof  of  the  divinity  of  our  Saviour.  Whilst  contending 
sects  fly  to  grammars,  and  to  old  and  new  parchments  and  papers,  how- 
copyists  marked,  introduced  or  omitted  accents,  or  divided  particles  and 
words — and  whilst  they  array  private  individual  judgment,  and  oppose 
conjecture  to  conjecture:  we  have  a  glaring  fact  in  palpable  evidence, 
and  we  pay  the  homage  of  our  adoration  with  humble  faith ;  whilst  they 
are  interminably  quarrelling  to  know  whether  God  inspired  the  writer 
to  place  or  to  omit  his  accent  or  his  aspirate,  and  to  know  how  it  ought 
to  be  translated  in  either  supposition.  No  doctrine  is  forced  on  the 
belief  of  Christians  save  what  God  originally  forced,  if  I  may  use  the 
expression,  every  one  to  receive:  Scripture  itself,  and  the  very  last 
passage  that  ever  an  inspired  penman  wrote,  testifies  that  God  taught 
doctrines  and  did  acts  which  are  not  written  by  the  inspired  writers; 
but  it  is  dishonest  to  insinuate  that  what  has  not  been  written  by  them, 
was  unknown  to  them.  We  will  readily  admit,  that  the  power  of  inter- 
preting is  power,  as  the  power  of  testifying  is  also  power.  But  it  is 
strange  to  tell  us  that  whatever  bestows  power  must  be  dangerous  to 
truth,  at  the  same  time,  that  it  is  avowed  [that]  Christ  told  the  original 
members  of  this  tribunal  "all  power  is  given  to  me  in  heaven  and  on 
earth."  {Matt,  xxviii,  18,  19,  20).  "As  my  Heavenly  Father  sent  me,  so 
I  send  you,"  {John  xx,  21,).  "You  shall  receive  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  coming  upon  you,  and  you  shall  be  witnesses  to  me."    {Acts  i,  8,). 

I  shall  return  to  this. 

Yours,  and  so  forth,  b.  c. 


492  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

LETTER  XXXVI. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  May  14,  1827. 
To  the  Eoman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends, — The  leading  characteristic  of  that  portion  of  what  is 
ludicrously  designated  as  Evidence,  which  is  now  under  considera- 
tion, is  an  unhesitating  assumption  of  the  very  question  at  issue.  The 
question  is,  whether  the  true  doctrine  of  Christ  is  retained  by  our 
Church,  or  has  been  lost  by  us.  "White  assumes,  without  proof,  that 
we  have  lost  it ;  and  then  proceeds  to  show  the  bad  consequences  of  this 
loss :  in  the  exhibition  of  those  consequences  he  again  begs  the  question, 
by  assuming  that  what  many  others,  as  well  as  Protestants  as  Catholics, 
look  upon  to  be  good  and  useful,  are  bad  and  mischievous  effects:  he 
adds  to  this  double  fallacy,  a  dishonest  blending  together  into  what  he 
insinuates  to  be  an  inseparable  unity,  facts  and  circumstances  which 
are  sometimes  accidentally  conjoined,  which  are  frequently  found  in 
separate  existence,  and  never  have  been  necessarily  and  essentially 
united.  The  following  passage  is  an  exhibition  of  this  dishonest  and 
fallacious  mode  of  proceeding :  page  89 : 

"By  the  combined  influence  of  tradition  and  infallibility,  the 
Church  of  Rome  established  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation.  From 
the  moment  that  people  are  made  to  believe  that  a  man  has  the  power 
of  working  at  all  times,  the  stupendous  miracle  of  converting  bread  and 
wane  into  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  that  man  is  raised  to  a  dignity 
above  all  which  kings  are  able  to  confer.  What,  then,  must  be  the 
honor  due  to  a  Bishop,  who  can  bestow  the  power  of  performing  the 
miracle  of  transubstantiation?  What  the  rank  of  the  Pope,  w^ho  is  the 
head  of  the  Bishops  themselves?  The  world  beheld  for  centuries  the 
natural  consequences  of  the  surprising  belief  in  the  power  of  priests 
to  convert  bread  and  wine  into  the  incarnate  Deity.  Kings  and  Em- 
perors were  forced  to  kiss  the  Pope's  foot,  because  their  subjects  were 
m  the  daily  habit  of  kissing  the  hands  of  priests — those  hands  which 
were  believed  to  come  in  frequent  contact  with  the  body  of  Christ." 

The  question  as  to  the  truth  of  our  doctrine  is  not  here  even  glanced 
at,  but  its  falsehood  is  magisterially  assumed:  and  the  whole  series  of 
observations  is  made  to  rest  upon  a  palpable  falsehood,  viz.  "By  the  com- 
bined influence  of  tradition  and  infallibility,  the  Church  of  Rome  estab- 
lished the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation."  Had  the  writer  substi- 
tuted the  following  or  an  equivalent  proposition  for  what  he  has  here 
given,  I  should  have  admitted  its  truth,  viz.  "By  the  evidence  of  tradi- 
tion, and  with  the  authority  of  infallible  truth,  the  Church  teaches  the 


two  CALUMNIES   OF  J.   BLANCO   WHITE  493 


doctrine  of  Transubstantiation."  Yet  this  proposition,  though  true  as 
far  as  it  goes,  would  be  inadequate  to  express  the  whole  of  the  facts, 
because  although  the  Church  produces  the  evidence  of  Tradition,  she  does 
not  rest  solely  upon  that  proof  even  conjoined  with  her  infallibility; 
she  has  morever  the  evidence  of  the  Scriptures,  she  has  the  testimony 
of  her  adversaries,  and  she  has  the  evidence  of  numerous,  palpable,  and 
continued  miracles.  Thus  this  fundamental  proposition  upon  which 
White  rests  his  observations,  is  false,  because  it  is  imperfect ;  for  it  ex- 
hibits but  a  small  portion  of  our  proofs  as  the  entire:  and  because  it 
conceals  that  which  he  esteems  the  most  valuable,  and  exhibits  only  that 
which  he  deems  to  be  of  least  worth. 

The  proposition  is  false  upon  another  ground;  because  it  gives  a 
deceptive  view  of  the  mode  in  which  the  doctrine  is  preserved  and  de- 
livered. There  are  two  descriptions  of  evidence  by  which  truth  is  made 
clear;  to  wit,  that  evidence  by  which  what  was  never  known  or  sus- 
pected is  for  the  first  time  discovered,  and  its  truth  becomes  thus  es- 
tablished. Akin  to  this  is  the  evidence  by  which  what  was  formerly 
known  but  forgotten,  becomes  revived  and  established:  under  this  head 
we  may  also  place  that  evidence  by  which  doubt  is  removed,  and  cer- 
tainty obtained  after  a  considerable  lapse  of  time,  or  protracted  inves- 
tigation. In  all  those  cases,  ignorance  or  doubt  pre-existed  to  knowledge 
and  certainty.  When  the  ignorance  is  overcome,  and  the  doubt  is  re- 
moved, then  evidence  establishes  the  truth,  and  at  every  moment  sub- 
sequent to  that  of  this  establishment,  it  will  be  true  that  a  correct  doctrine 
was  then  established. 

The  preservation  of  the  truth  thus  discovered,  and  thus  established, 
is  a  very  different  process  from  the  original  investigation  and  discovery. 
To  preserve  knowledge  by  correct  testimony,  is  not  then  to  establish 
knowledge  by  investigation  and  discovery.  It  is  plain  that  the  doctrine 
of  Transubstantiation,  supposing  it  to  be  that  taught  by  the  Saviour,  was 
established  only  by  his  teaching  and  by  that  of  his  Apostles ;  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Church  is  the  mode  by  which  it  is  preserved,  or  by  which 
we  establish  the  fact  that  Christ  taught  the  doctrine ;  this  uniform  and 
uninterrupted  and  universal  testimony  we  call  Tradition ;  when  we  say 
that  this  testimony  must  infallibly  lead  us  to  a  correct  knowledge  of 
what  Christ  and  his  Apostles  taught,  this  is  Infallibility.  Thus  it  is 
not  true  that  "by  the  combined  influence  of  Tradition  and  Infallibility, 
the  Church  of  Eome  established  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation," 
for  the  doctrine  was  not  established  by  the  Church,  but  by  the  Saviour. 
But  it  is  true  that  by  their  combination  the  doctrine  and  its  evidence  are 
both  preserved ;  and  I  am  at  a  loss  to  know  what  better  mode  could  be 


494  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


devised  for  their  preservation  than  the  uninterrupted,  uniform  testi- 
mony of  the  Universal  Church  of  eighteen  ages  and  almost  all  nations; 
I  must  own  that  it  weighs  more  with  me,  than  does  the  opinion  of  Bishop 
Kemp,  the  sturdiness  of  Doctor  Post,  or  the  warlike  impetuosity  of  the 
Reverend  Wm.  Hawley, 

The  proposition  which  forms  the  ground  work  of  the  paragraph  is 
then  a  double  falsehood;  and  the  galaxy  of  our  divines  have  adopted  it 
in  their  holy  ardor  against  Popery.  As  Gustavus  Vasa  said  to  his  Dala- 
carlians:  "0  how  I  admire  their  lovely,  fierce  impatience!"  Show 
them  but  a  rag  of  scarlet,  and  like  the  spurning  bull,  each  hero  bellows 
as  he  shakes  his  neck,  and  pushes  with  his  frontlet.  Their  eagerness 
for  the  overthrow  of  Antichrist  leads  them  to  the  thoughtless,  indis- 
criminate adoption  of  all  the  means  which  their  evil  genius  places  within 
their  grasp,  and  thus  they  become  partners  in  the  falsehoods  and  follies 
of  the  worst  and  weakest  of  our  assailants.  "From  the  moment  that 
people  are  made  to  believe  that  a  man  has  the  power  of  working  at  all 
times  the  stupendous  miracle  of  converting  bread  and  wine  into  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ ;  that  man  is  raised  to  a  dignity  above  all  which  kings 
are  able  to  confer."  This  being  better  expressed  would  be  true;  as  it 
stands,  it  is  to  say  the  least,  very  doubtful.  Suppose  the  man  had  the 
power  though  the  people  should  never  be  made  to  believe  that  he  had  it, 
he  still  is  raised  to  the  dignity;  and  if  the  people  were  made  to  believe 
that  he  had  this  power  which  he  really  did  not  possess,  he  would  not  be 
raised  to  the  dignity :  so  that  the  dignity  depends  not  upon  the  belief  of 
the  people  which  might  be  founded  on  delusion,  but  upon  the  existence 
of  a  power,  which  could  be  derived  only  from  God.  Nor  is  it  strange 
that  the  king  of  heaven  should  raise  his  ministers  to  a  higher  dignity 
than  earthly  kings  are  able  to  confer ;  so  that  the  eternal  evidence  here 
tells  rather  against  White,  who  pays  his  court  to  his  Majesty  of  England, 
and  the  good  sovereigns  of  the  European  holy  alliance  in  rather  an 
awkward  manner,  by  insinuating  that  it  is  a  proof  of  the  falsehood  of 
our  doctrine,  that  God's  minister  is  raised  to  a  higher  dignity  than  a 
king's  minister. 

It  certainly  is  to  me  a  novelty  to  discoveo  that  the  dignity  of  min- 
isters is  to  be  in  the  inverse  ratio  of  their  principles.  Will  Bishop  Kemp 
and  his  associates  strike  their  oriflamme  to  the  flag  of  the  beloved  Fer- 
dinand ?  The  holy  fathers  would  not :  they  all  united  in  the  declaration 
that  the  dignity  of  the  priesthood,  in  consequence  of  that  very  power 
of  consecration,  was  superior  to  that  not  only  of  kings  themselves,  but 
even  of  angels  and  archangels.  These  however,  were  the  Chrysostoms, 
the  Augustines,  the  Jeromes,  the  Basils,  the  Gregorys,  the  Prospers,  the 


two  CALUMNIES   OF   J.   BLANCO   WHITE  495 

Clements,  and  such  other  antiquated  personages.  Men  who  lived  before 
the  discovery  of  the  art  of  printing,  before  the  invention  of  the  mariner's 
compass,  before  the  construction  of  the  blow-pipe,  previous  to  the  poly- 
gamy of  King  Henry  VIII  (the  godly  Josias,)  or  even  to  the  days  of  the 
wise  men  of  Gotham.  Must  we  therefore  be  satisfied  that  they  were  ig- 
norant of  what  Clirist  taught  the  Apostles,  and  the  Apostles  communi- 
cated to  the  Churches,  and  the  Churches  in  their  day  exhibited  as  their 
uniform  doctrine?  We  however  will  be  content  to  believe  with  those 
holy  fathers  that  the  dignity  of  the  Priesthood  is  above  all  which  kings 
are  able  to  confer,  though  like  them  we  may  rest  in  dull,  lethargic 
insensibility  to  General  Smith's  Apocalyptic  calculations,  or  Symes's 
theory  of  concentric  spheres,  or  the  exact  moment  when  Johanna's 
Shiloh  is  to  make  his  appearance,  or  when  Rabbi  Frey  who  writes  in 
the  capacious  receptacle  of  his  own  conscience,  all  the  contradictions 
of  the  sponsors  of  Blanco  White,  shall  have  obtained  money  enough 
to  purchase  his  brethren  according  to  the  flesh  to  brotherhood  in  spirit. 

But  to  be  serious :  this  language  of  White 's  contradicts  the  language 
of  the  Fathers ;  and  he  charges  upon  us  as  consequences  of  false  doctrine, 
the  exact  result  which  they  drew  from  what  they  called  the  doctrine  of 
Christ.  It  might  be  antiquated  and  unfashionable :  but  it  is  ours,  and 
it  was  that  of  the  whole  body  of  the  writers  of  the  best,  the  brightest, 
and  the  earliest  ages  of  the  Church.  White  has  left  their  communion; 
we  glory  that  we  adhere  to  it,  and  that  we  believe  as  they  did.  White 
proves  here,  for  us,  that  we  have  not  changed  the  doctrine. 

One  little  correction  is  all  that  I  shall  add  upon  this  topic.  If  we 
were  to  believe  that  priests  had  a  natural  power  to  make  this  change 
themselves,  it  would  be  indeed  a  surprising  belief:  but  our  faith  is  that 
it  is  the  supernatural  power  of  the  Deity  which  effects  the  change  of 
substance,  but  by  the  act  of  the  priest ;  and  if  White  were  a  member  of 
the  Church  of  England,  he  would  believe  that  an  unbaptized  child  was 
stained  with  the  guilt  of  original  sin ;  was  a  child  of  wrath,  and  exposed 
to  ruin :  he  would  also  believe  that  if  he  baptized  that  child,  a  most  sur- 
prising change  would  take  place,  by  virtue  whereof  that  sin  would  no 
longer  exist,  that  child  would  be  a  favorite  of  heaven  and  have  a  title 
to  everlasting  life  and  glory.  White  would  tell  me  that  this  change 
was  not  the  consequence  of  natural  operation,  but  of  supernatural  power ; 
that  though  the  man  was  a  minister,  in  truth  God  was  the  agent,  and 
that  the  change  was  not  the  less  real  and  effectual  because  it  was  not 
visible,  or  otherwise  sensible;  his  word  "surprising"  is  not  then  appli- 
cable solely  to  the  Eucharist,  nor  is  it  new,  for  it  is  at  least  as  old  as 


496  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

St.  John  Chrysostom,  who  believing  as  we  do,  used  the  phrase  fourteen 
centuries  ago,  regarding  transubstantiation. 

The  concluding  passage  is  not  true  in  fact,  nor  honestly  constructed, 
even  if  the  facts  taken  in  their  isolated  character  should  be  proved  as 
true.  Suppose  the  two  assertions  were  proved  to  be  true,  viz.  that  the  sub- 
jects of  kings  and  emperors  were  in  the  habit  of  kissing  the  hands  of 
the  priests,  and  that  kings  and  emperors  were  forced  to  kiss  the  Pope's 
foot,  the  truth  of  the  facts  would  not  be  sufficient  for  the  truth  of  the 
proposition ;  it  should  be  moreover  shewn  that  the  latter  fact  was  a  con- 
sequence of  the  former,  for  such  is  the  assertion,  "because  their  subjects 
were  in  the  daily  habit  of  kissing  the  hands  of  the  priests."  This  is 
not  only  a  gratuitous  assumption,  but  it  is  a  false  assertion.  It  is  next 
to  impossible  for  me  to  prove  a  negative,  and  therefore,  I  can  here  only 
do  as  I  have  done  frequently  before  in  the  course  of  these  letters :  pledge 
myself  to  meet  any  of  the  reverend  gentlemen  whose  glove  I  have  taken 
up,  should  he  attempt  to  prove  the  truth  of  what  I  deny.  I  do  not  denr 
that  kings  and  emperors  and  their  subjects  did  occasionally  kiss  the  hands 
of  Priests  and  Bishops:  but  I  do  deny  that  the  monarchs  were  forcel 
to  kiss  the  Pope 's  foot,  either  because  the  people  kissed  the  hands  of  the 
priests,  or  because  the  hands  of  the  clergy  were  believed  to  come  in  con- 
tact with  the  body  of  Christ.  Thus  this  paragraph  contains  several 
falsehoods,  and  charges  us  with  deviating  from  the  doctrine  of  Christ, 
whilst  in  endeavoring  to  maintain  its  position,  it  proves  that  our  doctrine 
agrees  with  that  of  the  great  Fathers  of  the  Church  and  of  the  early 
Christians. 

He  throws  a  note  upon  this  subject  into  his  Appendix,  which  I 
shall  next  come  to  consider.  He  begins  with  the  following  paragraph, 
page  242 : 

^'Transubstantiation. — An  accurate  and  detailed  history  of  the  rise 
and  gradual  progress  of  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation  would  be  a 
valuable  contribution  to  the  philosophy  of  the  human  mind.  "What  ap- 
pears to  me  most  deserving  the  attention  of  philosophical  observers,  is 
the  concurrence  of  two  perfectly  unconnected  errors,  in  giving  birth  to 
this  intellectual  monster." 

I  once  heard  of  a  treatise  written  de  omni  re  scihili,  et  quibuslihet 
aliis,  "concerning  every  thing  which  may  be  known,  and  some  other 
things;"  such  would  be  the  accurate  and  detailed  history  of  the  rise 
and  gradual  progress  of  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation,  unless  it 
was  combined  with  that  of  the  rise  and  gradual  progress  of  the  doctrine 
of  Christ;  the  history  ought  to  be  given  if  it  could:  and  as  the  ^vriter 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO    WHITE  497 

of  the  note  attempts  its  outline,  I  shall  follow  him  in  his  philosophical 
observations : 

"The  natural  propensity  of  mankind  to  refer  their  worship  of  the 
invisible  to  the  symbols  employed  to  express  it,  is  found  even  among  the 
early  Christians.  A  great  reverence  for  the  bread  and  wine,  which,  in 
the  words  of  the  Saviour,  were  called  his  flesh  and  blood,  far  from  being 
to  blame  in  them,  must  be  viewed  as  a  direct  consequence  of  the  certainty 
they  possessed,  that  the  Eucharist  had  been  established  by  the  Son  of 
God.  But  here  the  usual  process  of  the  vulgar  mind  began.  Abstrac- 
tions and  distinctions  are  difficult  and  painful  to  the  generality  of  man- 
kind. The  spiritual  presence  of  Christ,  the  intimate  connexion  between 
an  external  and  simple  act  of  eating  and  drinking,  and  the  influence 
of  his  grace  on  the  soul  of  those  who  eat  and  drink  by  faith  in  his  death 
and  passion,  was  soon  lost  sight  of.  Though  Christ  himself  had  declared 
that  '  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing, '  the  bread  and  wine  gradually  assumed 
the  character  of  his  material  flesh  and  blood.  Yet  neither  the  people 
nor  their  leaders  were  able  to  use  any  definite  language  upon  the  mys- 
terious work  of  consecration." 

This  is  beginning  philosophical  inquiry  with  a  vengeance !  In  his 
first  three  lines,  he  most  illogically  begs  the  question,  by  assuming 
that  the  Eucharist  is  not  what  it  is,  and  he  most  irreverently  charges 
the  early  Christians  with  a  propensity  to  idolatrous  worship.  "The 
natural  propensity  of  mankind  to  refer  their  worship  of  the  invisible 
to  the  symbols  employed  to  express  it,  is  found  even  among  the  early 
Christians."  The  philosopher  has  already  done  much  to  prove  that  the 
Church  of  Christ  became  idolatrous  at  a  very  early  period ;  or  else  tha  t 
our  doctrine  of  what  he  is  pleased  to  call  worshipping  the  symbols,  is 
not  idolatrous!  He  next  calls  "bread  and  wine"  what  the  Saviour,  he 
tells  us,  calls  "his  flesh  and  blood."  The  philosopher  begins  pretty 
clearly  in  this  place  to  lay  his  foundation  for  differing  with  the  expres- 
sions of  the  Saviour ;  as  he  had  previously  condemned  the  worship  of  his 
disciples;  but  he  does  not  blame  them  for  having  a  great  reverence  for 
the  "bread  and  wine,"  since  this  reverence  is  a  direct  consequence  of 
the  Eucharist  having  been  established  by  the  Son  of  God.  But  the 
philosopher  would,  I  suppose,  upon  the  same  principle,  not  blame  them 
for  having  equal  reverence  for  "water,"  since  baptism  in  water  has  been 
with  equal  certainty  established  by  the  Son  of  God.  Yet  we  find  the 
early  Christians  pay  no  such  reverence  to  the  water  in  which  they  were 
baptized,  as  to  what  the  Saviour  calls  "his  flesh  and  blood."  Thus  we 
do  not  find  amongst  the  early  Christians  the  same  propensity  "to  refer 
their  worship  of  the  invisible  to  all  the  symbols  employed  to  express 


498  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

it."  Our  philosopher  ivill,  I  trust,  admit  the  correctness  of  our  logic 
in  rejecting  parity  of  consequence,  where  analogy  does  not  exist,  and 
in  deducing  similar  conclusions  where  that  analogy  is  found,  and  in  not 
drawing  universal  conclusions  from  particular  premises :  he  must  there- 
fore admit  that,  if  we  do  not  find  worship  paid  to  the  water  of  baptism, 
and  we  do  not  find  it  paid  to  the  symbols  of  the  Eucharist,  there  must 
be  a  very  great  difference  between  the  nature  of  each  symbol  in  the  esti- 
mation of  the  early  Christian ;  also  that  as  both  were  equally  established 
by  the  Son  of  God,  and  one  was  worshipped,  whilst  the  other  was  not, 
the  great  reverence  which  was  paid  to  what  "the  Saviour  called  his 
flesh  and  blood"  did  not  arise  merely  from  the  certainty  that  the  Euchar- 
ist had  been  established  by  the  Son  of  God,  but  did  arise  from  some  other 
cause,  which  was  not  to  be  found  in  baptism. 

His  next  passage  is  worse  than  insulting  to  the  Christian  Church. 
Good  God!  my  friends,  what  kind  of  Christianity  can  that  be,  which 
can  only  be  built  upon  the  abuse  and  vilifying  of  the  best,  the  earliest, 
and  the  most  faithful  disciples  of  Christ.  "Vulgar  minds."  Such  has 
always  been  the  language  of  vain,  empty  and  petulant  philosophists, 
when  describing  the  true  followers  of  Christ  during  eighteen  centuries. 
The  whole  host  of  confused  theologists,  who  have  bewildered  themselves 
and  their  followers  with  such  unintelligible  jargon  as  the  remainder  of 
this  pasage  contains,  have  ever  been  so  entangled  upon  this  subject,  that 
I  must  avow  my  "vulgar  mind"  could  not  catch  at  the  ideas,  if  any, 
which  their  words  convey.  I  can  understand  what  it  is  to  eat  bread 
and  drink  wine,  and  to  believe  that  Christ  died  to  save  me,  and  to  hope 
for  his  grace,  and  to  trust  that  I  might  be  animated  by  his  Spirit;  but 
I  cannot  understand  how  I  can  eat  a  body  which  is  not  present,  nor 
drink  blood  which  is  not  in  my  mouth.  I  do  not  understand  what  is 
the  idea  of  eating  by  faith;  I  can  understand  what  believing  by  faith 
means,  but  eating  is  an  act  of  the  body,  and  believing  is  an  act  of  the 
mind;  and  to  believe  is  not  to  eat,  as  every  one  may  easily  experience. 
It  is  not  a  subject  upon  which  to  indulge  levity,  or  I  should  give  abund- 
ant demonstration.  I  shall  have  another  opportunity  of  showing  that 
Christ's  flesh  profits  much  by  its  immolation  upon  the  cross,  and  that 
the  meaning  of  the  Saviour  is  here  shamefully  distorted.  It  is  false, 
that  there  was  no  definite  language  used  by  the  people  and  their  leaders 
upon  the  mysterious  work  of  consecration.  Mark,  then,  the  retreat  of 
the  philosopher :  *  *  The  first  Christians  did  not  know  the  nature  of  the 
Eucharist."  Is  this  the  result  of  philosophy?  "The  first  Christians 
did  not  know  the  doctrine  of  Christ. ' '     I  shall  continue  the  examination. 

Yours,  and  so  forth,  b.  c. 


two  CALUMNIES   OF  J.   BLANCO   WHITE  499 

LETTER  XXXVII. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  May  21,  1827. 
To  the  Eoman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends, — In  my  last  I  merely  alluded  to  the  passage  of  White's 
note,  in  which  he  states  that  "Though  Christ  himself  had  declared  that 
'the  flesh  profiteth  nothing,'  the  bread  and  wine  gradually  assumed  the 
character  of  his  material  flesh  and  blood."  I  shall  now  take  up  that 
passage  more  at  length.  We  must  in  the  first  instance  see  what  was  the 
error  of  the  Capharnaites  which  the  Saviour  corrected.  The  transac- 
tion is  related  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  ;S^^.  John's  Gospel,  and  in  this  place 
the  redeemer  declared  repeatedly  that  his  flesh  was  meat  indeed,  and  his 
blood  was  drink  indeed,  and  that  the  bread  which  he  would  give  was  his 
flesh  for  the  life  of  the  world :  he  assured  them  that  except  they  eat  of 
the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man  and  drank  his  blood  they  could  not  have  life 
in  them.  Many  of  the  people  of  Capharnaum  apprehended  that  they 
were  to  receive  his  body  as  they  used  to  receive  meat  at  the  shambles, 
and  complained  that  this  saying  was  hard,  and  who  could  bear  it  ?  The 
early  writers  testify  to  this  to  have  been  the  erroneous  impression  of 
this  people.  This  is  what  we  understand  by  eating  material  flesh  and 
blood:  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  believes  that  Christ  did  not  intend 
to  give  his  material  flesh  and  blood  thus  to  be  taken,  in  this  disgusting 
manner.  Our  bodies  in  their  natural  or  material  state,  are  in  a  very 
different  mode  of  existence  to  what  they  will  be  in  their  supetnatural 
or  spiritualized  state,  after  the  resurrection ;  as  the  Apostle  St.  Paul 
testifies ;  where  he  informs  the  Corinthians  that  what  is  sown  is  a  cor- 
ruptible body,  what  rises  is  an  incorruptible  body ;  what  is  sown  is  a 
natural  body,  what  rises  is  a  spiritual  body.  The  Roman  Catholic 
Church  believes  that  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist  is  not  in  the 
natural,  corruptible,  passible,  animal  state;  but  in  the  supernatural,  in- 
corruptible, impassible,  spiritualized  state  in  which  glorified  bodies  shall 
be  after  their  resurrection,  and  in  which  his  own  body  is  since  his  resur- 
rection.— And  thus,  although  we  know  very  little  of  the  properties,  and 
nothing  of  the  nature  of  the  human  body  in  its  natural  or  material  state, 
we  know  still  less  of  its  properties  in  that  supernatural  or  spiritualized 
state :  it  is  therefore  ridiculous  presumption  for  us  to  argue  upon  a  case 
of  which  we  know  so  little :  but  reason  tells  us  that  respecting  the  body 
of  Christ,  we  act  correctly  in  receiving  the  testimony  of  God,  who  fully 
knows  its  nature  in  all  its  states.  We  know  that  the  same  identical  bodies 
which  we  have  will  arise  from  the  dead,  although  they  shall  have  been 
first  resolved  to  dust,  but  we  know  not  how  this  will  be  effected :  yet  we 


500  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

know  by  revelation  that  we  shall  arise  in  the  same  bodies,  not  in  newly 
created  bodies;  thus,  although  the  body  will  be  changed  in  its  mode  of 
existence,  it  will  still  be  the  same,  now  natural,  material,  then  spirit- 
ualized; now  corruptible,  then  incorruptible.  So  the  Catholic  Church 
believes  that  in  the  Eucharist  is  found  the  same  identical  body  of  Christ, 
which  was  material  in  its  natural  state,  now  spiritualized  in  its  super- 
natural state.  She  does  not  teach  the  doctrine  of  the  Capharnaites ; 
on  the  contrary  she  condemns  it ;  hence  "White  and  his  sponsors  allege 
w^hat  is  not  true  when  they  assert,  that  we  make  "bread  and  wine 
assume  the  character  of  his  material  flesh  and  blood."  It  is  but  one 
of  their  ordinary  calumnies  to  impute  to  us  the  errors  which  we  con- 
demn in  others.  And  the  words  of  the  Saviour  are  by  us  applied 
as  they  were  by  himself  to  condemn  the  error  of  the  Capharnaites.  There 
was  either  a  want  of  generosity,  or  injuctice,  or  of  knowledge  in  those 
who  wrote  and  those  who  published  this  note,  I  cannot  determine  which. 
I  have  before  remarked  upon  the  falsehood  of  his  concluding  passage, 
"yet  neither  the  people  nor  their  leaders  were  able  to  use  any  definite 
language  upon  the  mysterious  work  of  consecration. ' '  No  person  indeed 
can  tell  how  the  God  of  Heaven  produces  the  change,  but  all  know  by 
his  own  declaration  the  fact  that  he  does  produce  it,  and  all  antiquity 
is  full  of  testimonies  of  their  belief.  At  this  day,  if  we  are  asked  to  tell 
exactly  what  is  the  nature  of  a  spiritualized  and  glorified  body,  we  must 
avow  that  we  cannot  tell ;  the  most  erudite  physician  cannot  tell  us  the 
nature  of  a  material  body;  he  can  inform  us  of  several  of  its  qualities 
and  properties,  which  he  has  learned  from  observation,  experience,  and 
the  testimony  of  other  men ;  we  can  tell  him  some  of  the  qualities  and 
properties  of  spiritualized  bodies  which  we  have  learned  by  the  testimony 
of  God,  which  is  to  say  the  least,  as  good  a  criterion  of  the  truth,  as  is 
the  observation  and  experience  and  testimony  of  man.  I  know  not  how 
the  Eucharist  change  is  effected,  but  neither  do  I  know  how  the  myster- 
ious operations  of  nature  are  produced:  when  our  opponents  shall 
have  explained  to  me  how  seeds  are  produced  in  trees  and  herbs,  when 
they  shall  have  informed  me  how  animal  life  is  produced,  communicated 
and  extinguished,  I  shall  explain  to  them  the  "mysterious  work  of  conse- 
cration. ' ' 

•  I  shall  now  proceed  to  another  paragraph  of  our  investigating  phil- 
osopher: and  if  we  had  not  in  Dohlado's  Letters  seen  abundant  evidence 
by  his  own  avowal,  of  his  neglect  of  study,  the  passages  which  are  now 
to  pass  in  review,  would  be  sufficient  to  lead  us  to  the  same  conclusion. 
"It  happened,  however,  in  the  metaphysical  ages  (such  name,  I 
believe,  would  suit  the  period  between  the  twelfth  and  the  sixteenth  cen- 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  501 

turies)  that  every  system  which  successively  occupied  the  attention  of 
the  schools,  had  an  effect  not  unlike  that  which  is  now  produced  by  physi- 
cal discoveries,  though  upon  very  dissimilar  objects.  A  newly  discov- 
ered law  or  power  of  nature,  in  our  days,  puts  the  whole  mass  of  Euro- 
pean intellect  into  motion:  a  thousand  applications  are  tried,  ten  thou- 
sand hopes  of  improvement  are  raised,  till  the  effervescence  is  sobered 
down  by  experience  and  failure.  A  new  metaphysical  system  produced 
in  those  times  a  similar  state  of  mind,  among  the  class  who  pursued 
abstract  knowledge,  with  regard  to  the  objects  of  their  favorite  studies, 
and  that  without  any  thing  to  cheek  it.  Platonism  first,  and  then  Aris- 
totleism  were  believed  to  be  sufficient  to  explain  every  mystery  in  the- 
ology. The  success,  however,  of  the  latter  was  unrivalled  in  defining, 
explaining,  and  demonstrating  the  as  yet  indistinct  and  fluctuating 
theory  of  the  Eucharist." 

Upon  this  passage  I  shall  make  but  few  observations ;  first,  he  might 
have  very  properly  stated  the  commencement  of  this  period  a  century  or 
two  earlier :  second,  though  the  schoolmen  applied  their  ingenuity  to  ex- 
plain the  doctrines  of  theology  by  their  philosophical  systems,  they  never 
believed  or  taught  that  those  systems  would  be  sufficient  to  explain  any 
one  of  the  mysteries,  so  as  to  demonstrate  its  truth  by  reason,  and  make 
it  cease  to  be  mysterious  and  above  the  comprehension  of  the  human 
mind :  this  point  is  easily  settled :  the  position  of  White  and  of  the  holy 
alliance  will  be  fully  established,  and  I  shall  be  completely  refuted,  by 
their  producing  names  and  works  of  those  who  made  such  statements; 
these  vague  assertions  will  not  answer.  The  last  passage  is  a  distinct 
untruth,  in  as  much  as  it  asserts  that  it  was  believed  that  by  means  of 
Aristotelic  philosophy,  the  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist  could  be  demon- 
strated, and  in  as  much  as  it  asserts  that  the  theory;  doctrine,  (I  know 
of  no  theory  of  the  Eucharist)  was  before  or  at  that  time  either  indistinct 
or  fluctuating:  for  in  those  ages  as  well  as  in  the  preceding  centuries 
the  doctrine  was  distinct,  settled,  and  universally  received,  that  at  the 
consecration  the  substance  of  the  bread  and  wine  ceased  to  be  under  the 
appearances,  and  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  were  really  and  sub- 
stantially present,  under  the  appearances.  In  those  ages  it  is  true,  meta- 
physicians began  to  inquire  and  to  discuss  in  what  manner  the  change 
was  effected,  but  that  it  was  effected  they  were  agreed,  for  such  was  the 
doctrine  that  had  come  down  from  the  Apostles,  and  was  found  in  all 
the  Churches,  Latin,  Greek,  Nestorian,  Eutychian,  and  all  throughout 
the  East  and  the  West.  The  metaphysical  question  concerning  the 
manner  in  which  the  change  was  effected,  is  a  very  different  one  from 
that  which  must  have  preceded,  if  the  doctrine  were  fluctuating :  for  the 


502  CONTROVEKSY  Vol. 

schoolmen  were  sufficiently  acute  to  know  according  to  one  of  their 
own  axioms  that  the  question  of  fact  is  previous  to  that  of  mode,  and 
they  would  have  investigated  whether  a  change  actually  did  take  place, 
before  entering  upon  the  examination  of  the  manner  in  which  that  change 
occurred.  The  schoolmen  adhered  more  rigidly  to  the  rules  of  sound 
logic  than  White  has  done,  or  dared  to  do  with  the  case  which  he  at- 
tempts to  support.  The  schoolmen  were  seldom  found  begging  the  ques- 
tion, or  deliberately  writing  palpable  untruths  under  the  guise  of  religi- 
ous zeal:  not  so  with  the  author  of  the  Evidence  who  is  comparable 

To  Sir  Agrippa,   for  profound 

And  solid  lying  much  reno^vn  'd. 

And  as  the  next  paragraph  will  show, 

JPoT  mystic  learning,  wondrous  able 

In  magic  talisman  and  cabal. 

By  help  of  these,  as  he  profess 'd. 

He  had  first  matter  seen  undress 'd: 

He  took  her  naked  all  alone, 

Before  one  rag  of  form  was  on. 

The  Cahos  too,  he  had  descried 

And  seen  quite  through,  er  else  he  lied, 

Beside,  he  was  a  shrewd  philosopher 

And  had  read  every  text  and  gloss  over; 

He  Antroposophus  and  Floud, 

And  Jacob  Behmen  understood. 

Mark  his  erudition  in  the  following  passage : 

"One  of  the  doctrines  introduced  by  the  Aristotelian  system  of 
the  school,  is  that  of  substantial  forms  or  absolute  accidents,  ^o  The 
school-men  suppose  that  the  universe  consists  of  a  mass  of  matter  invested 
by  certain  forms  or  qualities  which  possess  a  real  and  substantial  being. 
This  was  a  lucky  discover}^  for  the  school  divines.  It  explained  the 
bodily  presence  of  Christ  in  the  sacrament.  The  substance  of  the  bread 
and  wine,  they  said,  is  converted  into  his  body  and  blood;  but  the 
absolute  accidents,  the  substantial  forms  of  both  remain  as  before. — 
Hence  the  word  transuhstantiation.^' 

The  schoolmen  are  here  either  not  understood  by  our  learned  phil- 
osopher, or  he  plays  Sir  Agrippa  with  them.  There  is  often  to  be  found 
amongst  our  modern  philosophers  an  overweening  contempt  for  their 
predecessors  of  the  period  to  which  "White  has  alluded.  I  can  have  no 
pretensions  to  rush  into  the  ranks  of  the  mighty  men  of  mind  who  adorn 


™  The  Schoolmen  have  foisted  many  of  their  absurdities  upon  the  Greek  philoso- 
pher. From  the  definition  which  Aristotle  gives  of  matter,  it  is  evident  that  he 
considered  that  word  as  the  sign  of  an  abstraction.  'Materia  est  neque  quid,  neque 
quantum,  nee  aliud  eorum  quibus  ens  denominatur.'  I  quote  the  translation  used 
among  the  schoolmen. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF  J.   BLANCO   WHITE  503 

tlie  present  age.  They  have  carried  forward  the  discoveries  in  natural 
philosophy  of  the  laborious  and  scientific  pioneers  who  have  removed 
many  obstacles  which  impeded  the  progress  of  man  in  the  regions  of 
air,  of  earth  and  of  ocean.  As  White  very  properly  remarks,  this  may 
very  justly  be  called  the  epoch  of  the  investigation  and  improvement 
of  physical  science.  At  a  great  distance  I  admire  the  men  who  so  as- 
siduously and  successfully  cultivate  the  field  of  knowledge ;  my  destiny, 
perhaps  my  taste,  and  occasionally,  it  may  be,  my  duty  drew  me  in 
another  direction.  I  have  gone  amongst  the  schoolmen  and  conversed 
with  them  in  the  dust  in  which  they  slept ;  having  roused  them  from  their 
slumbers,  and  brushed  away  the  cobweb  drapery  in  which  they  were  en- 
folded, I  was  left  almost  in  solitude  to  learn  their  opinions  and  to  re- 
ceive their  testimony.  It  was  fashionable  to  laugh  at  them;  they  were 
made  objects  of  ridicule:  and  to  sneer  at  the  schoolman  was  to  an  idle 
or  a  brainless  youth,  a  more  agreeable  or  easy  occupation  than  to  read, 
to  understand,  or  refute  him:  language  has  changed,  and  in  the  lapse 
of  time  the  variation  of  phrases  and  their  translation  have  given  ideas 
altogether  different  from  those  which  the  scholastic  writer  intended  to 
convey.  The  dignified  baron  and  the  chivalrous  knight  of  the  13th 
century  would  have  abundant  theme  for  descant  on  the  lisping  fopling 
who  might  strut  or  slide  through  a  modern  drawing  room.  There  is 
no  period  in  which  man  in  his  civilized  state  does  not  exhibit  in  society 
a  blending  of  what  is  respectable  and  contemptible.  In  the  days  of  the 
schoolmen,  the  minds  of  the  learned  were  not  directed  to  the  same  objects 
which  now  occupy  the  attention  of  our  men  of  information,  and  could 
the  dunces  of  former  ages  see  the  lahors  of  our  best  philosophers,  they 
would  lament,  or  affect  to  pity  the  ignorance  of  men  whose  productions 
they  were  unable  to  estimate,  just  as  the  thoughtless  and  ignorant  of 
to-day  sneer  at  schoolmen  of  w^hose  valuable  works  they  have  scarcely 
an  idea.  I  do  not  think  it  useful  to  literature,  to  cast  away  with  con- 
tempt what  has  been  the  result  of  the  disquisition  and  investigation  of 
powerful  intellect  at  any  former  period.  I  would  prefer  seeing  the  cor- 
rection of  the  errors  or  mistakes  of  our  ancestors  added  to  their  knowl- 
edge and  our  acquirements,  rather  than  to  witness  the  childish  disregard 
of  every  thing  they  knew  because  their  system  of  natural  philosophy 
was  imperfect,  and  their  expressions  were  too  formal,  and  are  now  an- 
tiquated. This  foolish  fashion  of  treating  them  with  contempt,  has 
deprived  us  of  much  valuable  matter  which  they  had  collected  and  ar- 
ranged in  their  o^vn  way,  and  I  must  avow,  however  my  nameless  self 
might  suffer  from  the  avowal,  that  I  look  upon  their  metaphysics  to  ex- 


504  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


ceed  that  of  most  of  our  moderns  as  much  as  our  Imowledge  of  physics 
exceeds  theirs. 

White  is  either  ignorant  of  their  language  or  studiously  misrep- 
resents its  meaning ;  he  plays  upon  the  word  substantial,  and  is  guilty  of 
a  dishonest  quibble  in  its  use,  or  he  knows  nothing  of  the  language  of 
schoolmen.     The  only  difference  which  exists  between  us  and  them,  is 
in  the  mode  of  expression.     In  our  language  at  present,  substantial  does 
not  mean  what  it  did  in  the  schools ;  and  any  person  w^ho  would  attach 
to  the  word  in  the  schools  the  same  meaning  which  it  has  in  present  com- 
mon usage  W'Ould  be  grossly  in  error.     In  the  schools  it  means  real,  not 
chimerical.     Appearances  or  secondary  qualities  of  bodies  which  affect 
our  senses,  are  by  modern  philosophers  said  to  be  nothing  in  the  body, 
but  are  effects  produced  by  the  body  upon  us ;  thus  heat,  according  to 
some,  is  a  sensation  of  the  soul  produced  by  the  disposition  of  the  parts 
of  that  body  which  is  said  to  be  hot.     I  find  several  bodies  of  unlike 
substance  but  of  the  same  temperature;  iron,  brass,  lead,  stone,  cotton 
are  all  different  substances,  but  all  have  the  same  degree  of  heat.     The 
schoolman  said  that  the  accident  of  heat  existed  absolutely  in  each  of 
them,  that  they  all  had  the  same  substantial  form  of  heat :  a  modern  will 
tell  you  that  they  all  emit  the  same  quantity  of  caloric:  another  will 
tell  you  that  they  are  all  so  configured  as  to  produce  the  same  sensation 
of  heat :  in  fact  they  are  but  different  modes  of  expressing  the  same  idea ; 
the  expression  being  accommodated  to  the  philosophical  theory  of  the 
day,  which  theory  is  as  yet  fluctuating  and  unsettled.     White  then  as- 
serts what  is  not  the  fact  when  he  informs  his  readers  that  the  schoolmen 
supposed  the  "forms  of  qualities"  to  possess  a  real  and  "substantial 
being"  if  by  substantial  he  would  have  us  believe  any  thing  different 
from  or  beyond  what  the  modern  mean  by  the  same  real  existence  of 
those  qualities.     I  shall  give  an  illustration.     In  the  book  of  Josue  it 
is  stated  that  an  angel  appeared  to  that  leader,  in  the  shape  of  a  warrior : 
there  w^as  here  an  angelic  substance  clothed  with  human  appearance. 
The  schoolman  would  say,  the  substance  of  a  man  was  not  there,  but 
the  substantial  form  or  absolute  accidents  of  a  man  were  there,  and 
clothed  the  angelic  substance  which  was  really  there;  thus  the  figure, 
color,  and  so  forth,  of  a  human  being  existed  where  the  substance  did  not : 
a  modern  philosopher  would  tell  you  that  those  secondary  qualities  can- 
not exist  but  in  the  substance  of  a  human  being,  that  therefore  as  the 
substance  of  a  human  being  was  not  here,  these  accidents  which  can 
exist  only  in  that  substance  did  not  exist  here:  but  he  acknowledges 
that  the  angelic  substance  was  really  there,  and  that  God  miraculously 
caused  the  impressions  upon  the  senses  of  Josue  to  be  the  same  as  if 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO   WHITE  505 

the  substance  of  a  human  being  and  not  that  of  an  angel  were  present. 
Thus  the  modern  and  the  ancient  differ  only  in  their  mode  of  expressing 
the  same  identical  idea,  which  is  "the  substance  of  an  angel  appeared 
as  that  of  man."  Before  the  doctrine  of  substantial  forms  or  absolute 
accidents  found  its  way  into  the  schools,  Christians  believed  that  Christ 
was  really  present  in  the  Eucharist  by  virtue  of  a  change  produced  by 
God:  when  this  philosophy  prevailed,  the  schoolmen  said  that  the 
substance  was  changed,  but  the  absolute  accidents  remained:  when  a 
new  philosophy  succeeded,  it  was  still  taught  [that]  the  bread  and  wine 
are  changed  into  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  but  [that]  after  conse- 
cration, God  produces  upon  our  senses  the  same  impressions  by  the 
new  substance  that  he  would  by  the  old,  if  no  change  had  taken  place; 
thus  all  the  parade  of  our  philosopher  is  of  no  avail;  the  same  idea 
was  still  expressed  in  other  terms  suited  to  the  age:  the  doctrine  re- 
mained unchanged.  I  doubt  if  many  members  of  the  holy  alliance  have 
seen  it  before,  but  "White  does  not  understand  Aristotle's  definition  of 
the  matter.  Upon  his  next  paragraph  I  shall  make  little  comment: 
it  is  the  following: 

"The  idea  of  a  general  mass  shaped  by  these  substantial  forms  or 
moulds,  is  so  agreeable  to  the  external  impressions  of  mankind,  and  so 
analogous  to  the  operations  by  which  what  we  call  materials  are  con- 
verted into  objects  fitted  for  peculiar  uses;  that  the  words  in  which 
the  school  philosophers  expressed  them,  have  been  incorporated  with 
all  the  European  languages. "  ^i 

The  good  gentleman,  I  am  convinced,  knows  just  as  little  of  the 
scholastic  authors,  and  of  the  Aristotelic  philosophy,  as  he  does  of  the 
materials  of  the  moon.  I  shall  leave  him  and  Bishop  Kemp  to  get,  as 
well  as  they  can,  out  of  transubstantiation  of  their  own  Churches.  01 
one  thing  I  must  avow  my  own  perfect  ignorance,  upon  which  perhaps, 
some  one  might  condescend  to  inform  me,  viz.  "What  is  the  doctrine  of 
the  Church  of  England  or  what  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal Church  of  the  United  States  respecting  the  nature  of  the  Euchar- 
ist." Do  they  believe  the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence?  If  they  do, 
which  is  it,  by  consubstantiation  with  the  Lutherans,  or  by  transubstan- 
tiation with  the  Greeks  and  Latins?  If  they  do  not  believe  the  real 
presence  of  Christ's  body  how  can  they  eat  it?     Can  we  eat  what  they 


-^  "  It  is  curious  to  trace  to  the  same  source  even  the  word  elements,  which  seems 
to  have  been  chosen  by  the  Protestants  as  the  most  independent  from  the  theory  of 
conceived  to  bear  the  qualities  of  things.  Omnium  elementa  possunt  invicem  in 
se  transmutari,  non  generatione,  sed  alteratione.  The  bread  and  wine  were  elements 
because  they  were  supposed  to  be  changed  into  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  See 
Brucker,  Hist.  PMlos.  i>art  ii,  lib.  ii,  c.  vii. ' ' 


506  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

have  not  present  ?  What  is  the  difference  between  eating  and  believing  ? 
Do  the  two  phrases  mean  the  same,  "I  eat,"  "I  believe"?  How  could 
the  word  elements  be  chosen  to  avoid  expressing  transubstantiation,  it! 
bread  and  wine  were  called  elements  because  they  were  supposed  to 
be  changed  into  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ?  I  can  understand  the 
doctrine  of  Zuingiius,  who  says  that  after  consecration  there  is  only  what 
was  before ;  but  that  in  eating  the  bread  and  drinking  the  wine,  you  eat 
and  drink  what  you  have  present,  viz.  bread  and  wine,  that  in  doing  so 
you  may  call  to  mind  a  former  occurrence,  and  that  for  doing  so,  you 
may  receive  grace  from  God :  but  this  is  not  eating  Christ 's  body.  I  can 
understand  the  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church,  which  says  that  at  the 
consecration  although  no  apparent  change  occurs,  yet  a  substantial 
change  takes  place,  and  now  Christ 's  body  and  blood  assume  the  appear- 
ance of  bread  and  wine,  or  have  the  substantial  forms,  or  absolute 
accidents  of  those  substances  or  matters:  in  this  case  I  eat  Christ's  body 
which  is  present,  but  I  eat  not  bread  which  has  ceased  to  be  present, 
and  I  only  require  the  power  of  God  to  perform  the  change,  which 
is  wdthin  that  power.  I  can  understand  the  doctrine  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  which  states  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  placed  together  with  the 
substance  of  the  bread  under  its  appearance,  for  in  this  case  I  can 
conceive  two  substances,  under  one  appearance ;  it  requires  more  exten- 
sive miraculous  interference  than  does  the  Catholic  doctrine,  because 
it  requires  that  two  bodies  shall  occupy  the  same  space ;  but  in  this  case 
the  communicant  eats  the  body  of  Christ,  as  also  bread,  because  both 
are  present.  But  I  cannot  understand  the  person  who  tells  me;  "You 
eat  what  is  not  present,  you  eat  Christ's  body  although  it  is  not  there." 
Nor  is  the  proposition  made  intelligible  by  informing  me  that  the  mode 
in  which  I  eat  the  absent  body  is  by  Faith,  because  faith  is  belief,  and 
eating  and  believing  are  not  in  fact  synonjTnous.  Hence  I  have  always 
looked  upon  the  doctrine  of  Bishop  Kemp's  Church  on  this  sacrament 
to  be  too  abstruse  for  my  conception,  or  to  be  sheer  nonsense :  it  might 
however  be  owing  to  my  own  stupidity. 

We  now  come  to  the  last  paragraph  of  the  note,  page  245 : 
' '  That  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  could  not  have  been  estab- 
lished without  the  aid  of  Aristotle,  any  one  who  examines  the  technical 
words  of  the  Roman  Catholic  divines,  upon  that  question,  will  readily 
perceive.  Of  this  they  were  so  fully  convinced  but  a  short  time  ago, 
that  I  recollect  the  opposition  to  which  the  modern  system  of  natural 
philosophy  was  still  subject  in  my  youth,  as  depriving  the  Roman 
Catholic  faith  of  its  chief  support,  by  the  rejection  of  the  substantial 
forms.     Indeed,  transubstantiation  conveys  either  no  meaning  at  all, 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO   WHITE  507 


or  one  entirely  the  reverse  of  what  Rome  intends ;  unless  we  suppose  the 
separableness  of  substance,  and  forms  or  qualities.  The  substance  of 
the  bread  and  wine,  it  is  said,  is  converted  into  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ,  which,  translated  into  any  language  but  that  of  the  schools, 
means  that  the  body  of  Christ  (I  wish  to  speak  reverently)  chemically 
analyzed  in  the  consecrated  bread  and  wine,  will  be  found  to  consist 
of  every  thing  which  constitutes  bread  and  wine,  i.  e.  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  will  be  found  to  have  been  converted  into  real  bread  and  wine. 
What  else  do  we  designate  by  bread  and  by  wine  but  two  aggregates 
of  qualities,  identical  to  what  the  analytical  process  will  show  after  con- 
secration? Substance  without  qualities  is  a  mere  abstraction  of  the 
mind;  with  qualities,  it  is  that  which  the  qualities  make  it.  So  here 
we  have  a  mighty  miracle  to  convert  Christ  into  bread  and  wine;  for 
such  would  be  the  substance  of  his  body  if  it  changed  its  qualities  for 
those  of  the  two  well  known  compounds  which  the  Roman  Catholics 
adore.  If  it  is  said  that  Christ  occupies  the  place  of  the  bread  and  wine, 
and  produces  the  impressions  peculiar  to  them  on  the  senses,  the  sup- 
posed miracle  should  change  the  name  of  transubstantiation  into  that  of 
delusion.  Surely  transubstantiation  has  for  its  basis  the  most  absurd 
philosophical  system  which  ever  disgraced  the  schools  of'  a  barbarous 
age!" 

The  first  proposition  here  is  altogether  untrue,  upon  the  old  maxim 
of  the  schoolmen,  ah  actu  ad  posse  valet  consecutio.  The  doctrine  was 
established  long  before  the  aid  of  Aristotle  was  sought  to  explain  its 
philosophy.  Ages  succeeding  ages  saw  it  spread  through  nations  before 
the  principles  of  the  Greek  philosopher  were  applied  to  the  subject;  and 
it  now  exists  where  that  philosopher  has  been  rejected,  of  which  the  self- 
contradicting  White  himself  bears  evidence  in  this  very  passage;  for 
he  admits  that  the  modern  system  of  philosophy  co-existed  with  the  belief 
in  the  Spanish  universities,  though  some  advocates  of  the  Aristotelic 
system  raised  the  difficulties  which  he  states.  Did  he  deny  what  he  here 
admits,  I  am  prepared  with  abundant  evidence  to  show  the  co-existence 
of  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  and  of  the  modern  theory  of  natural 
philosophy  in  the  great  majority  of  European  universities,  and  in  some 
of  them  long  before  the  birth  of  White,  who  avows  his  own  idleness,  and 
consequently  his  own  ignorance.  Some  of  the  most  steady  believers 
in  the  doctrine  have  been  some  of  the  best  contributors  to  modern  science 
in  France,  in  Italy,  in  Germany,  and  even  in  Spain  itself. 

But  of  all  the  miserable  attempts  to  put  on  the  semblance  of  learn- 
ing that  ever  fell  under  my  eye,  the  following  is  the  most  abject.  "What 
do  we  designate  by  bread  and  wine  but  two  aggregates  of  qualities  iden- 


508  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


tical  to  what  the  analytical  process  will  show  after  consecration."  And 
this  is  the  man  who  laughed  at  substantial  forms  and  absolute  accidents ! 
Surely  he  ought  to  have  known  that  bread  and  wine  are  substances,  and 
not  qualities,  nor  aggregates  of  qualities !  !  !  Bread  is  an  aggregate  of 
identical  qualities !  !  Bless  him  for  the  discovery !  He  has  at  last  gone 
beyond  my  reach,  "substance  without  qualities  is  a  mere  abstraction  of 
the  mind."  Granted,  good  Sir;  and  so  are  qualities  without  substance, 
or  as  the  old  schoolmen  would  call  them  absolute  accidents,  also  an  ab- 
straction of  the  mind;  and  yet  White  gives  us  this  abstraction,  this 
aggregate  of  qualities  for  bread!  "With  qualities,  it  is  that  which  the 
qualities  make  it."  By  no  means,  good  Sir;  it  is  the  substance  which 
produces  the  qualities,  or,  if  you  will,  make  them;  and  not  they  that 
make  the  substance. 

You  must,  in  all  natural  cases,  have  the  substance  of  gold  before 
you  will  have  its  color,  gravity,  taste,  and  so  forth.  It  is  not  the  taste 
and  smell  which  make  the  wine,  but  the  wine  which  makes,  or  produces, 
or  causes  them.  Such  is  the  case  according  to  the  laws  of  nature,  and 
hence,  though  the  qualities  do  not  make  the  substance,  we  will  generally, 
but  not  universally  arrive  at  a  knowledge  of  the  substance  itself,  by  as- 
certaining what  the  qualities  are ;  this,  I  suspect,  is  what  the  philosopher 
was  blundering  to  express,  when  he  compiled  this  paragraph  of  jargon. 
I  said  this  was  not  universally  the  ease ;  for  there  are  several  instances 
where  our  knowledge  is  so  limited,  that  we  draw  our  inferences  too 
hastily ;  the  principle  upon  which  they  are  drawn  is  analogj^  and  this  is 
not  the  most  easily  ascertained,  our  observation  is  not  sufficiently  close, 
nor  experience  sufficiently  extensive,  nor  acquaintance  with  nature  suf- 
ficiently intimate  to  save  us  from  mistakes,  and  those  of  the  most  serious, 
and  not  unfrequently  of  the  most  fatal  description.  But  in  miraculous 
cases,  it  is  totally  inapplicable.  I  shall  instance  but  one  or  two.  The 
"aggregate  of  qualities"  in  the  apparition  of  the  angel  of  Josue  would 
lead  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  substance  was  that  of  man.  22  Did  the 
qualities  make  the  substance  in  this  ease?  The  "aggregate  of  qualities" 
would  have  made  the  Holy  Ghost  the  substance  of  a  dove  in  one  in- 
stance ;23  and  the  substance  of  fire  in  another.^*  Will  Bishop  Kemp  hold 
to  the  "identical  analytical  process?"  In  those  cases,  the  substance  was 
neither  made  nor  detected  by  the  qualities.  And  yet  there  was  no 
delusion,  because  there  was  a  mode  afforded  for  discovering  by  the  decla- 
ration of  God  and  by  faith,  what  could  never  have  been  detected  or 

"  Josue  V,  13. 
"John  i.  .S2. 
^  Acts  ii,  3. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO    WHITE  509 

known  by  the  unaided  senses.  But,  mark  the  dishonesty  of  White,  who 
set  out  in  this  paragraph  by  stating  that  our  doctrine  could  not  be  es- 
tablished without  the  aid  of  Aristotle;  and  at  its  conclusion,  gives  its 
explanation  by  modern  philosophy.  "Christ  occupies  the  place  of  the 
bread  and  wine,  and  produces  the  impressions  peculiar  to  them  on  the 
senses."  Thus  he  shows  that  he  knowingly  wrote  what  was  not  true. 
He  however  calls  this  delusion.  What  will  he  call  the  cases  of  the  ap- 
parition of  angels  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  It  is  not  delusion ;  because 
we  are  informed  that  at  the  consecration  a  change  is  effected  in  sub- 
stance, though  not  in  appearance.  God  thus  affords  to  us  the  means 
of  knowing  the  fact ;  if  we  believe  him  there  is  no  delusion ;  if  we  will 
not,  we  delude  ourselves,  and  we  are  criminal;  the  fault  is  ours,  not 
that  of  our  Creator. 

I  may  then  conclude  this  letter  by  stating,  that  of  all  the  wretched 
attempts  of  this  man,  that  made  by  him  in  this  note  is  the  most  un- 
fortunate. It  is,  throughout,  a  combination  of  false  imputations,  un- 
sound philosophy,  undeserved  sneers  at  men  of  extraordinary  acquire- 
ments and  great  natural  ability,  confusion  of  ideas,  a  betrayal  of  ignor- 
ance and  self-sufficiency,  together  with  low  blasphemy ;  and  this  is  what 
the  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Kemp  and  the  other  members  of  the  holy  alliance 
recommended  to  their  flocks,  by  way  of  sound  instruction!  Surely 
their  doctrine  has  need  of  explanation,  and  it  would  be  well  for  them, 
if  it  was  as  intelligible  as  is  the  philosophical  system  of  what  they  are 
pleased  to  call  a  barbarous  age. 

Yours,  and  so  forth,  b.  c. 

LETTER  XXXVIII. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  May  28,  1827. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends, — The  next  passage  of  White's  that  comes  under  our 
observation  commences  at  page  89. 

"The  abundance  of  ceremonies  supposed  to  produce  supernatural 
effects,  must  magnify  the  character  of  the  privileged  ministers  of  those 
ceremonies.  Hence  a  Church  possessing  seven  sacraments,  is  far  super- 
ior in  influence  to  one  who  acknowledges  but  two.  Add  to  this  the 
nature  of  four  out  of  five  Roman  sacraments — penance,  extreme  unction, 
ordination  and  matrimony — and  the  extent  of  power  which  she  thereby 
obtains,  will  appear.  Penance,  i.  e.  auricular  confession,  puts  the  con- 
sciences of  the  laity  under  the  direction  of  the  priesthood.  Extreme 
unction  is  one  of  her  means  to  allay  fear  and  remorse.     Ordination  is 


510  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


intimately  connected  with  the  influence  which  the  Roman  Church  derives 
from  transubstantiation,  and  its  being  made  a  sacrament,  adds  proba- 
bility to  the  miraculous  powers  which  it  is  supposed  to  confer.  Finally, 
by  giving  the  sacramental  character  to  matrimony  the  source  and  bond 
of  civil  society  is  directly  and  primarily  subjected  to  the  Church." 

Upon  this  I  have  little  to  remark — the  principle  having  been  prev- 
iously disposed  of,  viz.    That  the  possession  of  power  in  the  Church  is 
evidence,  ' '  internal  evidence, ' '  that  ours  is  not  the  true  Church  of  Christ, 
who  said  to  his  Apostles,  and  in  their  persons  to  the  Church,  "As  my 
Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  I  send  you."  ^5     ''But  that  you  may  know 
the  son  of  man  hath  power  on  earth,"  and  so  forth.  26     "They  marvelled 
and   glorified   God  which  had  given   such  power  to   men."27     "And 
when  he  had  called  unto  him  his  twelve  disciples,  he  gave  them  power," 
and  so  forth.  -^     "All  power  is  given  to  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  go 
ye  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations  .    .    .  teaching  them  to  observe  all 
things  whatsoever  I  commanded  you:  and  lo,  I  am  with  you  always, 
even  unto  the  end  of  the  world. "  ^9     Yet  in  the  very  teeth  of  those  decla- 
rations. White  and  the  holy  alliance  would  tell  us  that  her  claim  to 
spiritual  power  is  internal  evidence  of  the  corruption  of  our  Church: 
and  there  is  not  a  single  one  of  the  sects  to  which  they  belong  that  does 
not  claim  and  attempt  to  use  more  power  over  its  members  than  any 
general  council  claims  or  uses  in  our  Church.     Suppose,  then,  I  were  to 
admit  the  truth  of  White's  first  proposition,  what  would  be  the  conse- 
quence ?     That  the  clergy  had  more  spiritual  power,  because  their  com- 
mission was  more  extensive.    Is  this  untrue  ?    No  Christian  will  deny  its 
truth,  but  even  any  rational  man  will  say,  that  the  important  question 
is  not  whether  the  character  is  magnified  or  diminished,  but  whether 
any  ecclesiastical  ceremony  is  efficacious,  and  if  so  how  many.    The  true 
question  is,  to  what  does  the  commission  extend?     Thus  the  very  ques- 
tion which  this  man  avoids  is  that  which  is  important,  and  his  rhapsody 
is  but  got  up  for  creating  prejudice,  not  for  investigating  truth:  hence 
too  his  second  proposition,  and  the  whole  sequel,  are  unfair  and  delusive. 
The  number  and  the  nature  of  the  sacraments  are  to  be  known  by  in- 
quiring what  Christ  instituted ;  not  by  asking  what  mankind  may  think 
of  his  bestowing  character  or  conferring  power. 

It  is  untrue  that  penance  is  auricular  confession,  or  that  auricular 
confession  is  penance.     I  might  as  well  assert  that  the  Senate  is  the 

-'  John  XX,  21. 

='  Matt,  ix,  6. 

="  lb.  ix,  8. 

"^ilatt.  X,  1. 

"lb.  xxsiii,  18,  et  seq. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  511 

Congress,  the  main  spring  is  a  watch,  the  rudder  is  a  ship,  or  the 
axletree  is  a  cart;  in  a  word,  that  one  of  the  parts  of  any  thing  is  the 
whole  of  that  of  which  it  is  a  part.  Penance  consists  of  three  parts  on  the 
side  of  the  penitent,  and  one  on  that  of  the  clergyman,  that  is,  four 
parts  in  the  whole:  and  confession  is  but  one  of  those  four  parts,  and 
very  frequently  the  least  necessary :  so  that  it  is  a  gross  misrepresenta- 
tion to  identify  penance  and  auricular  confession  in  this  offhanded  mode 
in  which  the  untruth  is  here  put  forward.  I  will  suppose  the  ease  of  a 
man  who  has  committed  a  theft  to  a  large  amount,  and  contrived  to 
shift  the  imputation  of  dishonesty  upon  an  innocent  father  of  a  family, 
by  which  his  reputation  is  destroyed  and  his  family  is  ruined.  This 
criminal  may,  however,  through  the  merits  of  Christ's  death,  be  forgiven 
by  the  sacrament  of  "penance,  i.  e.  auricular  confession."  The  impres- 
sion which  this  conveys  to  the  mind,  is  naturally  that  according  to  the 
tenets  of  our  Church,  the  criminal  has  only  to  confess  in  the  ear  of  a 
priest,  and  be  forgiven.  Such,  I  am  aware,  is  the  notion  entertained  by 
three  or  four  millions  of  our  enlightened  fellow-citizens  upon  the  subject. 
Yet  an  ignorant  Spaniard  would  tell  us  that  this  was  by  no  means  suf- 
ficient amongst  Catholics;  that  besides  this  confession,  three  other  in- 
gredients were  necessary,  viz.  contrition  and  satisfaction  on  the  part  of 
the  sinner,  and  absolution  by  the  clergyman. 

Thus,  in  the  case  stated,  the  crime  is  easily  told — but,  a  true  and 
sincere  sorrow  for  having  offended  God,  a  sincere  intention  of  avoiding 
future  transgressions,  and  of  flying  from  temptation,  true  and  perfect 
repentance  of  heart,  without  which  there  can  be  no  reconciliation  with 
heaven,  is  generally  the  result  of  reflection,  prayer,  and  the  grace  of  the 
most  high  God.  This  first  and  essential  requisite  Mr.  White  altogether 
omits  when  he  tells  us  "penance,  [and]  auricular  confession,"  mean  the 
same  thing.  Another  ingredient  of  penance  is  satisfaction.  In  the  case 
before  us,  the  criminal  is  bound  to  restore  the  sum  which  he  had  orig- 
inally stolen  to  the  person  upon  whom  the  theft  was  committed ;  to  make 
good  to  him  all  the  losses  which  he  sustained  in  consequence  thereof,  and 
if  possible  to  compensate  for  the  feelings  of  mortification,  pain  and  bit- 
terness which  were  endured.  This  is  something  more  than  "auricular 
confession."  But  he  has  a  far  more  extensive  and  difficult  task  to  per- 
form— he  must  use  every  exertion  to  restore  the  character  of  the  in- 
nocent man,  who,  by  his  contrivance,  bore  the  punishment  due  to  an 
offence  which  he  did  not  commit :  he  must  compensate  him  for  his  losses, 
he  must  endeavor  to  soothe  his  feelings :  he  must  make  reparation  to  his 
family.  This  is  something  more  than  "auricular  confession."  This  ex- 
plains the  horror  with  which  dishonest  Catholics  contemplate  confes- 


512  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

sion ;  this  accounts  for  their  readiness  to  unite  with  Protestants  in  de- 
crying and  vilifjdng  the  tribunal  of  penance,  and  the  difference  of  their 
conduct  as  regards  this  sacrament  is  an  almost  infallible  criterion  by 
which  to  judge  of  their  general  observance  of  the  code  of  Christian 
morality.  Were  there  no  obligation  to  do  more  than  to  make  "auricular 
confession, ' '  there  would  be  no  difficulty  in  penance :  but  confession 
leads  to  satisfaction,  and  is  useless  unless  accompanied  by  contrition  or 
repentance,  and  the  clergyman  is  answerable  with  his  own  soul  at  the 
bar  of  heaven  for  giving  absolution,  except  where  he  has  a  moral  cer- 
tainty, after  close  examination,  that  the  person  to  whom  he  gives  it 
has  all  the  proper  dispositions:  but  even  then  the  mistake  of  the  priest 
will  be  no  more  security  to  the  sinner  than  would  be  the  sinner's  own  in- 
sincerity :  unless  he  be  truly  penitent,  and  fully  disposed  to  satisfy  the 
justice  of  God  and  man,  the  absolution  will  be  invalid,  and  his  imperfect 
attempt  will  be  a  sacrilege.  Thus,  if  auricular  confession  places  the  con- 
sciences of  the  laity  under  the  direction  of  the  priesthood ;  it  also  places 
those  of  the  Pope,  and  of  the  Bishops,  and  of  the  Priests  themselves, 
under  the  same  control,  for  they  must  have  recourse  to  the  same  tribunal 
for  the  same  purpose,  the  remission  of  their  sins ;  and  the  law  of  God  is 
the  great  principle  by  which  the  director  is  to  be  guided,  for  when 
Christ  breathed  upon  his  Apostles  and  said  to  them,  "Receive  ye  the 
Holy  Ghost ;  "Whosoever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  to  them ;  and 
whosoever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained;"  2*^  he  committed  to  them 
this  power  of  remitting  and  retaining,  to  be  exercised  upon  the  principles 
of  his  moral  and  religious  institutions,  and  not  according  to  their  indi- 
vidual caprice.  As  to  their  predecessors  in  the  typical  law  of  Moses,  he 
gave  a  power  of  offering  an  atoning  sacrifice  after  the  confessions  of  the 
people,  not  upon  their  individual  caprice,  but  in  accordance  with  the 
great  principles  of  that  law  of  which  he  constituted  them  the  judges.  ^^ 
That  there  exists  power  in  this  tribunal  of  penance,  we  do  not  deny,  but 
we  assert  that  it  is  a  power  bestowed  by  Christ,  who  is  better  able  than 
we  are  to  judge  of  the  necessity  and  propriety  of  its  bestowal :  and  it  is 
a  curious  sort  of  logic  which  infers  from  the  existence  of  power  that  our's 
could  not  be  the  Church  of  Christ,  though  we  prove  that  the  Saviour  left 
such  power  in  his  Church.  But  whatever  excuse  the  holy  alliance  in 
America  might  have  for  using  the  argument,  it  comes  with  a  very  bad 
grace  from  "White,  who  calls  himself  a  clergyman  of  the  Church  of 
England^one  of  whose  rubrics  is  the  following : 

"Here  shall  the  sick  person  be  moved  to  make  a  special  confession 


'» John  XX,  22,  23. 

"  Lev.  V,  5 ;  Num.  v,  7 ;  Deut.  xvii. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO    WHITE  513 


if  he  feel  his  conscience  troubled  with  any  weighty  matter.  After 
which  confession  the  priest  shall  absolve  him  (if  he  humbly  and  heartily 
desire  it)  after  this  sort: 

' '  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  who  hath  left  power  to  his  Church  to  ab- 
solve all  sinners  which  truly  repent,  and  believe  in  him,  of  his  great 
mercy  forgive  thee  thine  offences,  and  by  his  authority  committed  to 
me,  I  absolve  thee  from  all  thy  sins,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  Amen." 

It  is  a  little  strange  that  White,  a  minister  of  the  Church  which  de- 
clares Christ  left  this  power  to  his  Church,  and  who,  by  Christ's  author- 
ity, is  liable  to  be  called  upon  for  this  exercise  of  power,  should  give  us, 
as  one  of  the  topics  of  Internal  Evidence  against  Catholicism,  the  claim 
of  the  Catholic  Church  to  this  power.  What  says  Bishop  Kemp  to  this? 
I  am  aware  that  his  Church  disclaims  the  power,  but  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land claims  it.  But  what  says  he  to  White's  logic?  What  say  the 
holy  alliance  to  this  argument  of  their  adopted  child?  Before  I  leave 
this  topic,  I  beg  to  remind  Bishop  Kemp  that  the  first  book  of  King  Ed- 
ward VI  had  this  tailpiece  to  the  above  rubric : 

"And  the  same  form  of  absolution  shall  be  used  in  all  private 
confessions. ' ' 

Thus  in  the  time  of  Edward  VI  the  English  Protestant  Church  had 
private  confession  and  absolution,  of  as  strict  necessity  as  in  our  Church. 
In  the  time  of  Elizabeth  the  confession  and  absolution  were  only  neces- 
sary for  the  dying,  subsequently  the  confession  and  absolution  were 
left  to  the  discretion  of  the  sick  person,  and  the  American  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  got  rid  of  them  altogether :  so  that  they  could  not  all 
be  following  the  institution  of  Christ :  Will  the  holy  alliance  vouchsafe 
to  inform  us  which  of  them  was  right  ? 

Were  I  to  argue  against  the  Church  of  England,  or  against  the 
Lutheran  Church  in  Europe  which  preserves  confession  and  absolution 
as  White  does  against  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  I  would  feel  humbled 
and  degraded  in  my  own  estimation.  I  shall  conclude  this  topic  with 
the  following  extract  from  the  Cork  Mercantile  Chronicle,  an  Irish 
paper,  of  the  2nd  of  last  month,  April,  giving  a  portion  of  the  assizes 
news  in  that  city.  The  trial  of  the  cause  was  held  before  Mr.  Justice 
Torrens.  De  Lacour  is  the  Treasurer  of  the  County,  and  a  Protestant. — 
Ryan  is  we  believe  a  Catholic. 

"By an  vs.  De  Lacour. 
"This  was  an  action  brought  by  the  plaintiff  to  recover  the  sum 
of  £408  from  the  defendant,  being  the  amount  of  a  presentment  for 
building  a  bridge  on  the  Mallow-road,  and  which  came  on  last  assizes, 


514  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


but  without  being  brought  to  any  decision,  a  juror  having  been  with- 
drawn. 

"In  the  course  of  the  proceedings  this  day,  a  man  named  Riordan, 
who  was  produced  as  a  witness  for  the  plaintiff,  astonished  the  Court 
and  the  jury  by  his  declaration.  He  swore  that  the  present  action 
was  the  result  of  a  conspiracy  against  Mr.  De  Lacour ;  that  he  had  per- 
jured himself  at  the  last  assizes,  and  that  other  witnesses  for  the  pro- 
secution were  perjurers;  and  that  £20  a  head  was  to  be  the  payment 
for  each  perjurer.  He  said  that  he  made  this  avowal  now  in  conse- 
quence of  the  advice  which  he  had  received  from  the  Rev.  Mr.  Cotter, 
the  Roman  Catholic  Curate  of  Ballinamona,  to  whom  he  confessed  his 
guilt,  and  who  suggested  the  present  mode  of  reparation.  Riordan  was 
committed  for  perjury  on  his  own  confession. 

"At  5  o'clock  a  verdict  was  returned  for  the  defendant,  with  6d. 
costs." 

What  would  Mr.  De  Lacour  say  to  auricular  confession  putting 
the  conscience  of  the  laity  under  the  direction  of  the  priesthood  ?  What 
do  the  holy  alliance  say  to  the  restitution  perpetually  made  in  conse- 
quence of  this  direction  ?  What  say  they  to  all  the  injustice  and  other 
crimes  prevented  by  this  direction?  The  God  who  established  this  doc- 
trine knows  more  of  human  nature  than  they  do. 

"Extreme  unction  is  one  of  her  means  to  allay  fear  and  remorse." 

Unquestionably,  when  received  with  proper  dispositions.  But  who 
made  it  so  ? 

"Is  any  sick  amongst  you?  Let  him  call  in  the  priests  of  the 
Church;  and  let  them  pray  over  him,  anointing  him  with  oil  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord.  And  the  prayer  of  faith  shall  save  the  sick  person, 
and  the  Lord  will  raise  him  up ;  and  if  he  be  in  his  sins  they  shall  be  for- 
given to  him."  ^2 

White  before  he  wrote  this  passage,  should  have  done  as  Luther 
did :  this  holy  father  of  the  Reformation  denied  the  Epistle  of  St.  James 
to  be  an  inspired  document :  how  have  his  followers  admitted  it  ?  White 
should  also  have  recollected,  if  ever  he  knew  the  fact,  that  the  Protestant 
Church  of  England  retained  extreme  unction  as  a  divine  institution. 

"If  the  sick  person  desires  to  be  anointed,  then  shall  the  Priest 
anoint  him  upon  the  forehead,  or  breast  only,  making  the  sign  of  the 
cross,  saying  thus : 

"As  with  this  visible  oyl  thy  body  is  outwardly  anointed:  so  our 
Heavenly  Father,  Almighty  God,  grant  of  his  infinite  goodness  that  thy 

^  James,  v,  14. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO   WHITE  515 

soul  inwardly  may  be  anointed  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  is  the  spirit 
of  all  strength,  comfort,  relief  and  gladness.  And  vouchsafe  for  his 
great  mercy  (if  it  be  his  blessed  will)  to  restore  unto  thee  thy  bodily 
health  and  strength  to  serve  him ;  and  send  thee  release  of  all  thy  pains, 
troubles,  and  diseases,  both  in  body  and  mind.  And  howsoever  his  good- 
ness, (by  his  Divine  and  unsearchable  Providence.)  shall  dispose  of  thee ; 
we  his  unworthy  ministers  and  servants,  humbly  beseech  the  eternal 
Majesty  to  do  with  thee  according  to  the  multitude  of  his  innumerable 
mercies,  and  to  pardon  thee  all  thy  sins  and  offences,  committed  by  all 
thy  bodily  senses,  passions  and  carnal  affections;  who  also  vouchsafe 
mercifully  to  grant  unto  thee  ghostly  strength  by  his  holy  spirit,  to 
withstand  and  overcome  all  temptations  and  assaults  of  thine  adver- 
sary, that  in  no  wise  he  prevail  against  thee,  but  that  thou  mayest  have 
perfect  victory  and  triumph  against  the  devil,  sin  and  death:  through 
Christ  our  Lord,  who  by  his  death  hath  overcome  the  prince  of  death, 
and  with  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  evermore  liveth  and  reigneth, 
God,  world  without  end.     Amen. 

''Then  follows  the  Psalm  ^^  xiii.  How  long  wilt  thou  forget  me, 
0  Lord,  and  so  forth.  Glory  be  to  the  Father,  and  so  forth.  As  it  was 
in  beginning,"  and  so  forth.  ^^ 

Bucer  however,  struck  out  the  rubric  and  prayer,  omitting  the  oil 
he  only  retained  the  Psalm:  leaving  its  use  also  a  matter  of  discretion. 

Si  videtur  commodum,  dicatur  etiam  hie  Psalmus,  pro  usitata, 
ante  haec  tempora,  unctione.     Usequequo  Domine,  and  so  forth.  ^^ 

The  ceremony  of  anointing  was  then  used  in  the  time  of  Edward 
vi,  in  the  Protestant  Church  of  England,  and  the  prayer  expressed  ex- 
actly and  fully  those  effects  which  the  Roman  Catholic  Charch  teaches 
to  be  those  of  extreme  unction :  it  is  in  perfect  conformity  to  the  direc- 
tion of  the  Apostles  and  the  usage  of  the  holy  Catholic  Church  in  the 
East  and  in  the  West :  it  was  cast  out  by  Bucer,  omitted  by  Elizabeth, 
and  declaimed  against  by  White  and  the  holy  alliance.  Bucer  {Censur, 
page  486,)  quoted  by  L 'Estrange,  page  299,  says,  "It  is  clear,  this  rite 
is  neither  ancient,  nor  commanded  to  the  Churches  practice,  by  any 
either  precept  of  God,  or  example  of  the  primitive  Fathers,"  and  upon 
those  grounds  he  calls  for  its  rejection,  yet  L 'Estrange  confesses,  that 
it  is  Apostolical,  and  therefore  ancient,  and  matter  of  a  precept  given 
in  St.  James,  of  course,  a  precept  of  God,  if  the  Epistle  be  the  word  of 
God.     As  to  the  example  of  the  primitive  Fathers,  we  have  the  testi- 


^^  In  the  Catholic  enumeration,  Ps.  xii. 

^*K.  Edw.  VI.     First  Book.  Ord.  Vis.  Sick. 

^  Ed.  Lat.  Buceri. 


516  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


mony  of  Pope  Innocent  I,  who  succeeded  to  the  Chair  of  Peter  in  the 
year  402,  who  in  his  epistle  to  Decentiiis,  c.  viii,  mentions  it  amongst 
those  sacraments  instituted  by  Christ,  derived  from  the  Apostles  and  al- 
ways administered  in  the  Church.  St.  Augustine,  St.  Jerome,  and  St. 
John  Chrysostom,  who  lived  at  this  period,  make  honorable  mention  of 
Innocent,  as  a  holy,  learned,  and  extremely  well  informed  pontiff.  The 
centuriators  of  Magdeburg,  who  were  staunch  Lutherans,  acknowledge 
that  the  administration  of  the  rite  was  customary  in  this  age,  (cap.  vi. 
De  Bit.  Visit.  Infirm.)  In  the  sixty-ninth  canon  of  the  Arabic  copy  of 
the  Canons  of  Nice,  the  oil  for  the  anointing  of  the  sick,  is  mentioned 
together  with  the  oil  of  catechumens  and  the  chrism. 

White's  passage  regarding  ordination,  may  go  for  what  it  is  worth. 
He  and  several  of  the  holy  alliance  will  at  all  events  allow  that  it  is  a 
visible  ceremony  instituted  by  Christ,  to  be  permanent  in  his  Church, 
and  that  the  person  who  is  ordained  with  becoming  dispositions  will  un- 
doubtedly at  the  time  of  ordination  receive  the  grace  or  gifts  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  to  enable  him  to  discharge  the  important  duties  of  the 
ministry,  and  this  is  all  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  requires  to 
make  it  a  sacrament.  Whether  it  imprints  an  indelible  character  is  an- 
other question.  The  British  Parliament  which  is  the  general  council  of 
the  English  Protestant  Church,'  decided  in  the  case  of  Home  Tooke,  that 
it  does.  In  the  time  of  Edward  VI,  the  teaching  was  otherwise:  but 
I  believe  the  doctrine  of  Bishop  Kemp's  Church  is  that  the  character 
of  orders  is  indelible.  I  profess  my  ignorance  of  the  doctrine  of  his  as- 
sociates of  other  Churches  regarding  this  subject.  White  and  Bishop 
Kemp  then  at  least  ought  not  to  quarrel  with  us  upon  the  score  of  ordi- 
nation, for  they  value  what  they  have  got  of  it,  just  as  highly  as  we  do. 

With  respect  to  matrimony,  it  is  true  that  we  raise  it  to  an  higher 
dignity  than  our  opponents  do,  and  yet  the  good  gentlemen  cannot  be 
restrained  from  applying  us  to  the  text  in  which  St.  Paul  condemns  the 
Encratites,  the  Marcionites,  the  Ebionites,  and  their  successors  the 
Manicheans,  who  forbad  marriage  as  criminal,  and  would  never  touch 
particular  meats  or  wine,  which  came  from  the  devil,  as  they  say.  But 
suppose  we  erred  in  believing  that  our  blessed  Redeemer  did  exalt  this 
most  necessary  and  important  of  all  human  contracts  to  the  high  dig- 
nity of  a  sacrament,  and  that  since  many  religious  duties  are  intimately 
connected  therewith,  it  ought  on  those  two  accounts  be  in  a  great  meas- 
ure subject  to  the  superintendence  of  the  Church,  we  are  at  least  con- 
sistent with  our  principle :  nevertheless  we  do  not  deny  the  right  which 
the  State  governments  have,  in  all  parts  of  the  world,  to  make  by 
reason  of  its  being  the  "source  and  bond  of  civil  society,"  such  regula- 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  517 

tions  as  they  might  see  necessary,  provided  they  be  not  inconsistent  with 
the  divine  law  in  respect  to  this  momentous  concern.  Upon  our  prin- 
ciples, we  can  very  consistently  explain  why  a  clergyman  is  called  upon 
for  the  celebration  of  marriage.  But  if  it  be  only  a  civil  contract ;  and 
the  clergy  have  no  concern  in  civil  contracts ;  upon  what  principle  will 
any  gentleman  of  the  holy  alliance  in  the  United  States,  who  holds 
no  civil  commission,  and  in  whom  the  State  recognizes  no  civil  au- 
thority, presume  to  be  the  principal  official  personage,  and  pocket  fees 
for  doing  a  civil  duty?  The  general  impression  in  the  United  States 
is  that  the  clergy  have  no  civil  character  beyond  that  of  mere  private 
citizens,  but  it  seems  this  is  an  error :  for  a  clergyman  is  an  official  per- 
sonage, who  receives  a  considerable  sum  for  regulating  mere  civil  con- 
tracts. The  Roman  Catholic  Clergy  do  not  pretend  to  be  civil  officers, 
they  merely  attend  to  the  administration  of  the  sacraments  of  their 
Church,  and  receive  gratuities  for  discharging  their  duty  as  clergy- 
men. 

White  continues,  page  90. 

* '  There  still  remain  three  exclusive  offsprings  of  tradition,  explained 
and  defined  by  infallibility,  which  yield  to  none  in  happy  consequences 
to  the  Roman  Church — indulgences,  purgatory,  and  the  worship  of 
saints,  relics,  and  images. 

"The  wealth  which  has  flowed  into  the  lap  of  Rome,  in  exchange 
for  indulgences,  is  incalculable.  Even  in  the  decline  of  her  influence,  she 
still  looks  for  a  considerable  part  of  her  revenues  from  this  source: 
to  which  she  also  owes  the  degree  of  subjection  in  which  she  keeps  the 
Roman  Catholic  governments.  My  unfortunate  native  country  shows 
the  nature  and  extent  of  this  influence  in  a  striking  light." 

He  then  continues  upon  the  subject  of  indulgences  to  the  94tli 
page.  As  this  subject  has  been  amply  treated  of  in  a  former  volume  of 
the  Miscellany,  and  every  topic  which  White  introduces  has  been  there 
fully  discussed,  and  all  his  positions  disproved  in  those  papers,  I  shall 
only  refer  you  to  the  examination  of  an  article  which  appeared  in  the 
North  American  Review,  No.  XLIV,  for  July,  1824,  the  remarks  upon 
which  are  found  in  No.  69  of  the  Miscellany,  Sept.  22,  1824,  and  the 
subsequent  papers.  After  having  read  this  examination,  it  will  be 
manifest  that  Rome  derives  no  part  of  her  revenues  from  indulgences. 
His  statement  in  page  93,  that  "the  tax  thus  levied  on  the  people  of 
Spain,  is  divided  between  the  King  and  the  Pope,"  is  a  plain  simple 
untruth,  just  as  correct  as  the  table  given  in  Guthrie's  Geography  of 
the  rate  at  which  Rome  sells  leave  to  commit  the  sins  there  enumerated. 
But  why  should  White  have  the  hardihood  to  complain  of  the  inability 


518  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

of  the  Spanish  Cortes  to  reduce  tythes  one  half,  whilst  he  had  full  in 
and  connexion  of  her  peculiar  doctrines,  have  happened.  The  power 
which  he  was  writing  to  support,  the  power  which  grinds  down  the 
Irish  Catholic  peasant  with  tythes  and  taxes  to  support  a  Protestant 
Church.  The  Spanish  people  and  not  the  Pope  resisted  the  encroach- 
ment of  the  Cortes.  The  Spanish  peasant  is  supported  by  the  charity 
of  the  Catholic  Church,  the  Irish  peasant  is  beggared  and  maddened 
by  the  rapacity  of  the  Protestant  Church;  the  Spanish  peasants  and 
poor  desire  to  prevent  the  impoverishment  of  their  Church  by  infidels 
who  desired  to  enrich  themselves,  because  the  poor  know  that  the  Church 
property  is  shared  with  them,  whilst  a  great  portion  of  the  Cortes  hav- 
ing imbibed  French  infidelity,  and  having  leagued  with  the  infidels  of 
the  rest  of  Europe,  imitated  France  in  their  efforts  to  destroy  religion, 
and  having  disgusted  a  Catholic  people,  they  made  liberty  and  ir- 
religion  synonymous;  and  inflicted  a  deadly  blow  upon  public  free- 
dom. "White  misrepresents  the  political  state  of  Spain  as  much  as  he 
does  the  tenets  of  our  Church:  but  my  object  being  only  to  vindicate 
the  latter,  I  shall  not  enter  farther  into  Spanish  politics.  I  shall  there- 
fore pass  forward  to  his  portion  on  Purgatory. 

Yours,  and  so  forth,  b.  c. 

LETTER  XXXIX. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Aug.  27,  1827. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends, — I  stated  in  my  last  letter  that  the  next  portion  of 
White's  book  which  I  would  examine,  was  that  regarding  Purgatory.  It 
is  the  following,  and  is  found  in  pages  94,  95 : 

"The  belief  in  Purgatory  is  so  inseparable  from  the  former  tenet, 
that  I  need  not  enlarge  on  the  peculiar  advantages  which  Rome  has 
derived  from  it.  I  will  not  observe  how  fortunately  for  the  interests 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  not  only  the  existence,  but  even  the  mutual  help 
and  connexion  of  her  peculiar  dectrines,  have  happened.  The  power 
of  remitting  canonical  penance  would  have  been  useless,  on  the  cessation 
of  penitential  discipline;  but  tradition,  having  about  the  same  time 
brought  Purgatory  to  light,  offered  an  ample  scope  to  the  power  of  the 
Roman  keys.  Transubstantiation  now  presented  the  means  of  repeat- 
ing the  sacrifice  of  the  cross  for  those  who  were  supposed  to  be  under- 
going the  purification  by  fire.  The  whole  system,  indeed,  is  surpris- 
ingly linked  together,  and  the  very  connexion  of  its  parts,  tending  to 
secure  the  influence  and  power  of  the  source  from  whence  it  flows,  gives 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO   WHITE  519 

it  the  appearance  of  an  original  invention,  enlarged  from  the  gradual 
suggestions  of  previous  advantages." 

The  former  tenet  to  which  he  refers  is  that  respecting  indulgences. 
The  passage  now  before  us  is  one  which  it  is  not  easy  to  refute,  because 
it  asserts  so  little,  and  it  assumes  so  much:  some  of  its  assertions  also 
are  perfectly  true,  though  the  conclusions  for  whose  insinuation  they 
are  constructed  are  false.  Thus,  when  he  asserts  that  the  harmony  of 
our  doctrinal  system  is  striking,  he  states  only  an  obvious  fact.  It  is 
one  of  the  great  characteristics  of  truth  to  be  perfectly  consistent  in  all 
its  parts,  as  it  is  of  error  to  exhibit  multifarious  inconsistencies.  Surely 
our  blessed  Saviour  did  not  reveal  to  the  world  a  system  of  contradictions 
as  the  truth  which  descended  from  heaven,  nor  were  his  institutions 
either  at  their  origin,  or  to  become  at  any  future  period,  inconsistent 
with  his  doctrines.  As  there  was  but  one  God,  so  there  could  be  but  one 
code  of  his  true  doctrine ;  and  to  say  the  least,  the  very  exact  accordance 
of  principles  and  practices,  of  doctrines  and  institutions  in  a  Church 
professing-  to  be  that  of  Christ  the  God  of  truth,  must  create  a  strong 
presumption  in  favor  of  her  claim.  ''Not  so,"  however,  says  White, 
"The  w^hole  system  is,  indeed,  surprisingly  linked  together,  and  the 
very  connexion  of  its  parts,  tending  to  secure  the  influence  and  power 
of  the  source  from  whence  it  flows,  gives  it  the  appearance  of  an  original 
invention,  enlarged  from  the  gradual  suggestions  of  previous  advant- 
ages." Mark  the  dilemma  which  would  arise  from  the  admission  of 
White's  principle.  "If  Catholics  are  at  variance  with  each  other  in 
their  doctrines,  or  if  their  doctrines  and  institutions  are  discordant, 
they  cannot  be  professors  of  the  true  faith,  because  the  true  faith  is 
consistent  and  not  contradictory ;  if  their  professions  and  practice  agree, 
and  they  exhibit  unity  of  faith  and  consistency  of  practice,  their  sys- 
tem must  be  an  invention  of  their  own,  gradually  suggested,  and  not 
the  doctrine  of  Christ. ' '  Thus  in  no  case  will  White  allow  any  Christian 
Church  to  have  the  doctrine  of  Christ ;  because,  if  there  existed  incon- 
sistencies, her  doctrine  cannot  be  truth;  and  if  there  be  none,  it  must 
be  an  invention.  Such  is  the  miserable  retreat  to  which  he  is  driven.  It 
is  indeed  an  unenviable  position. 

Now,  we  adduce  on  our  own  part  the  fact  of  our  unity  of  faith  and 
consistency  of  practice,  as  a  strong  and  striking  presumption,  that  our 
doctrine  has  been  given  to  us  by  a  God  of  truth,  not  invented  by  our- 
selves ;  and  that  our  practice  is  consistent  with  his  law.  We  say  our 
conclusion  is,  upon  this  ground,  more  philosophical  than  his. 

His  next  insinuation  is,  that  our  system  must  have  been  a  gradually 
suggested  invention,  "because  it  tends  to  secure  the  influence  and  power 


520  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

of  its  source."  What  is  its  source?  We  say  God  is  its  source.  Is  it 
then  an  evidence  of  its  falsehood,  that  our  religious  system  tends  to  se- 
cure the  intiuence  and  power  of  God — of  our  Saviour?  No;  he  says 
that  our  sj^stem  is  not  derived  from  God,  but  invented  by  ourselves; 
and  he  says  that  the  doctrine  of  Purgatory  is  one  of  our  inventions.  Let 
us  examine  the  charge  to  see  its  nature,  and  the  facts  to  see  its  grounds. 
"Tradition  brought  Purgatory  to  light  about  the  time  that  penitential 
discipline  ceased."  This  proposition  does  not  charge  that  the  doctrine 
of  Purgatory  is  an  invention  in  that  sense  which  would  render  it  un- 
true, that  it  was  a  doctrine  of  Christ;  most  of  White's  fallacy  consists 
in  the  studied  ambiguity  of  his  phrases,  of  which  this  is  a  notable  ex- 
ample. When  we  say  that  any  thing  is  brought  to  light,  we  usually 
mean  that  w^hat  is  thus  brought  to  light  previously  existed,  though  not 
manifestly  and  generally  exhibited,  thus  what  is  so  brought  out  is  not 
an  invention  of  imposture,  but  a  finding  of  fact.  What  is  discovered  by 
tradition  is  not  an  invention,  for  the  first  time,  but  is  receiving  the 
testimony  of  a  long-existing  fact,  which  had  been  perhaps  nearly  or  alto- 
gether overlooked.  Thus  Avhen  White  charges  that  tradition  brought 
Purgatory  to  light,  his  charge  does  not  assert,  but  it  insinuates,  that  the 
doctrine  was  an  invention  of  folly  or  of  imposture  added  to  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ,  and  this  insinuation  alone  would  be  profitable  for  his 
object,  hence  this  is  the  meaning  which  I  attach  to  his  words,  for  this 
must  be  what  he  intended.  We  have  now  only  to  fix  the  time  of  this 
invention.  Here,  like  all  other  opponents  of  our  Church,  and  in  almost 
all  their  charges,  he  is  cautiously  vague  and  indistinct;  "the  time  of  the 
cessation  of  penitential  discipline"  is  a  space  spread  over  some  two  or 
three  centuries,  and  "about  the  same  time"  will  give  two  or  three  cen- 
turies more ;  here  then  is  a  space  of  about  six  hundred  years,  whose  pre- 
cise commencement  or  termination  is  not  fixed,  and  we  are  told  that  this 
vague  period  was  the  era  of  the  introduction  of  this  doctrine.  The  peni- 
tential canons  had  their  origin  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  but  were 
not  arranged  in  their  regular  form  of  full  perfection,  before  the  middle 
of  the  third  century ;  and  at  the  close  of  the  next  century,  public  penance 
was  abolished  by  Nectarius  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  and  by  his 
successor,  St.  John  Chrysostom ;  their  example  was  followed  pretty  gen- 
erally in  the  eastern  portion  of  the  Church,  but  it  was  not  until  the 
commencement  of  the  eighth  century  that  the  penitential  discipline  be- 
came considerably  relaxed  in  the  west,  and  it  had  not  altogether  ceased 
in  the  tenth  century;  and  it  is  about  this  period  so  vague  and  so  unde- 
fined, that  White  informs  us  that  the  doctrine  of  Purgatory  was  intro- 
duced. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  521 


Let  us  now  see  what  is  the  doctrine  itself.  All  that  we  are  required 
as  Roman  Catholics  to  believe  upon  the  subject,  consists  in  two  propo- 
sitions, viz. 

1st.  "That  there  is  a  Purgatory."  2d.  "That  the  souls  therein 
detained  may  be  aided  by  the  prayers  and  suffrages  of  the  faithful." 
Upon  the  first  of  these  propositions,  a  question  naturally  presents  itself. 
"What  is  meant  by  Purgatory?"  Confining  myself  strictly  to  what 
is  of  doctrine,  I  answer,  that  it  is  a  place  in  which  some  souls  suffer 
for  a  time  before  they  can  enter  heaven;  but  where  that  place  is,  or 
what  is  the  exact  nature  or  duration  of  the  suffering,  or  what  is  the 
exact  amount  of  relief  which  is  received  from  the  suffrages  of  the 
faithful,  are  all  topics  of  conjecture  and  of  opinion,  upon  which  no  doc- 
trine is  delivered;  there  is,  indeed,  a  very  general  belief,  that  the  suf- 
fering is  from  the  action  of  fire,  but  this  is  not  an  article  of  faith.  The 
souls  which  are  liable  to  this  punishment  are  those,  which,  being  recon- 
ciled to  God  through  the  merits  of  Christ,  and  thus  saved  from  the  pun- 
ishment of  hell,  have  been  subsequently  stained  with  the  filth  of  minor 
offences,  or  venial  sins,  which  his  mercy  does  not  deem  worthy  of  hell, 
but  his  justice  deems  worthy  of  punishment:  also,  those  souls  which, 
being  saved  from  perdition  by  repentance  and  mercy,  yet  like  the  an- 
cient penitents,  Moses,  and  David,  and  others,  had  a  temporary  punish- 
ment substituted  for  the  eternal,  and  not  having  through  life  endured 
or  expiated  what  divine  justice  thus  imposed,  are  after  death,  subjected 
to  the  temporary  endurance  equivalent  to  what  remains. 

My  object  now  is  to  show  that  the  belief  of  the  existence  of  Pur- 
gatory was  openly  professed  in  the  Christian  Church  after,  together 
with  and  before,  the  existence  of  the  penitential  discipline,  upon  the 
cessation  of  which.  White  says  it  was  brought  to  light,  or  invented ;  and, 
therefore,  that  his  assertion  is  untrue. 

The  Latin  Church  believed  in  its  existence  in  the  thirteenth  century, 
as  no  one  will  question ;  and,  although  the  general  opinion  then  amongst 
the  Greeks  was,  that  the  suffering  was  not  by  fire,  but  by  the  endurance 
of  darkness,  labor,  and  affliction :  all  those  Greeks  united  with  the  Cath- 
olic Church,  and  the  vast  majority  of  those  separated  from  it,  believed  as 
of  faith,  the  two  propositions  which  form  the  whole  substance  of  our 
doctrine,  and  the  existence  amongst  the  eastern  Christians  of  a  few, 
who  denied  their  truth,  would  as  little  tend  to  prove  the  rejection  of 
the  doctrine  by  the  Greeks,  as  the  existence  of  the  Albigenses  and  Vau- 
dois,  in  the  west,  would  tend  to  prove  that  it  was  rejected  by  the  Latins. 

I  shall  now  adduce  a  few  passages  from  the  works  of  eminent  wit- 
nesses of  the  Christian  faith,  in  several  of  the  previous  centuries,  and  it 


522  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


will  be  manifest,  from  their  testimony,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Church, 
which  in  those  centuries  was  conformable  to  that  of  those  witnesses,  was 
that  of  our  propositions. 

1.  St.  Bernard,  abbot  of  Clairvaux,  in  France,  who  died,  aged  63 
years,  on  the  20th  of  August,  1153,  in  his  Sermon  on  the  Death  of  Hum- 
hert,  has  the  following  passage : 

"My  brethren  the  irrevocable  time  flies  rapidly  away,  and  whilst 
you  guard  against  a  trifling  endurance,  you  incur  a  much  greater  pun- 
ishment. For  be  aware  of  this,  that  after  this  present  life,  those  things 
which  we  shall  have  neglected  here,  will  be  repaid  to  us  a  hundred  fold 
in  the  places  of  purgation ;  yea,  even  to  the  last  farthing.  I  know  what 
a  hard  thing  it  is  for  a  dissolute  man  to  undergo  discipline,  for  a  talk- 
ative man  to  endure  silence,  for  one  accustomed  to  roving  to  remain 
stationary,  but  it  will  be  harder,  much  harder  to  endure  future  afflic- 
tions." 

2.  St.  Anselm,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  in  England,  was  born 
in  Piedmont,  in  the  year  1033,  and  died  in  1109 ;  in  his  Commentaries 
upon  chapter  iii  of  /  Corinthians,  he  writes, 

"For  we  are  to  believe  that  for  certain  lighter  offences  there  is  a 
purging  fire  before  the  resurrection  of  the  bodies." 

3.  Cardinal  Peter  Damian,  Bishop  of  Ostia,  born  at  Ravenna, 
about  the  year  988,  and  died  on  the  22d  of  February,  1072;  in  his 
Second  Sermon  on  St.  Andrew,  [w^rites] , 

"Do  not  deceive  yourself  because  a  lighter  penance  is  imposed 
upon  you,  for  a  grievous  fault,  by  a  mild  or  a  partial  person,  since 
what  you  shall  have  here  omitted  must  be  supplied  in  the  purging  fires, 
because  the  IMost  High  demands  worthy  fruits  of  penance." 

4.  Venerable  Bede,  a  Priest  in  the  province  of  York,  in  England, 
born  about  the  year  673,  died  in  735,  on  the  the  26th  of  May:  in  his 
Commentary  on  Psalm  xxxvii  he  has  left  the  following  passage — (Prat. 
Bib.  Psalm  xxxviii.) 

' '  Some  persons  commit  venial  sins  more  or  less  grievous,  and  there- 
fore it  is  necessary  that  they  should  be  rebuked  in  wrath,  that  is  in  the 
fire  of  Purgatory ;  now  they  are  so  placed  before  the  day  of  judgment, 
that  whatsoever  is  unclean  in  them  might  be  thereby  burned  away,  and 
so  at  length,  they  might  be  found  fit  to  be  with  those  who  are  to  be 
crowned  on  the  right  hand." 

5.  St.  Isidore,  Bishop  of  Seville,  in  Spain,  succeeded  to  Leander, 
Bishop  of  that  see,  who  died  in  the  year  600:  Isidore  died  in  636:  in 
his  chapter  xviii  of  the  first  book  Of  Divine  Offices,  he  writes, 

"For  when  the  Lord  saith  {3Iatt.  xii)   whosoever  shall  commit  a 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO   WHITE  523 

sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  it  will  not  be  forgiven  to  him  neither  in  this 
world,  nor  in  that  which  is  to  come,  he  demonstrates  that  sins  are  to  be 
forgiven  to  some  persons,  and  to  be  purged  away  by  some  fire  of  purga- 
tion." 

6.  St.  Gregory,  the  Great,  was  born  at  Rome,  about  the  year  540, 
and  in  574  was  made  prgetor  of  the  city  by  the  Emperor  Justin  the 
younger:  the  subsequent  year  he  became  a  monk,  and  about  five  years 
after  he  was  sent  by  Pope  Pelagius  II  as  nuncio  to  Constantinople ;  he 
was  recalled  in  584,  and  in  590,  upon  the  death  of  Pelagius,  was  ad- 
vanced to  the  papacy.  He  had  the  faith  established  in  England,  and 
died  on  the  12th  of  March,  604.  In  his  Dialogues,  Book  iv,  chapter  39, 
we  read, 

"It  is  to  be  believed  that  there  is  a  purgatory  fire  for  some  lesser 
faults  before  the  final  judgment." 

And  in  his  Comment  on  the  third  penitential  Psalm,  {Psalm  xxxvii) 
he  writes, 

"I  know  that  after  the  termination  of  this  life,  it  will  happen  that 
some  persons  will  make  expiation  in  purging  fires,  others  will  undergo 
the  sentence  of  eternal  condemnation." 

7.  Boetius,  the  learned,  the  good,  the  honored  and  the  afflicted, 
master  of  the  palace  and  Secretary  of  State  to  Theodoric,  was  born  in 
Rome  in  470;  deeply  versed  in  science,  and  anxious  for  the  promotion 
of  learning,  besides  his  own  discoveries,  he  gave  to  the  world  his  trans- 
lations from  the  Greek  of  Euclid,  of  Plato,  of  Strabo,  of  Archimedes, 
and  other  authors  of  the  ancient  school.  He  was  also  a  zealous  defender 
of  the  purity  of  faith,  with  whose  doctrines  he  was  intimately  ac- 
quainted. He  was  put  to  death  by  an  unjust  order  of  the  barbarian  to 
whom  he  was  endeavoring  to  teach  the  art  of  ruling  with  Christian  jus- 
tice and  moderation :  he  died  on  the  23d  of  October,  585,  at  a  castle,  about 
midway  between  Pavia  and  Rome.  In  his  Works,  Book  iv,  Prosa  4,  is 
the  following  passage — 

"Do  you  leave  no  punishment  of  souls  after  the  death  of  the  body? 
Yes,  indeed,  and  very  grievous,  some  of  which  I  look  upon  as  having 
the  bitterness  of  punishment,  but  others  are  inflicted  with  a  clemency  of 
purgation. ' ' 

8.  Theodoret  was  born  near  the  close  of  the  fourth  century  in 
Syria,  and  having  received  a  most  extensive  and  liberal  education,  he 
bestowed  his  property  in  alms  and  entered  a  monastery  near  Apamea, 
now  Hems,  not  far  from  Aleppo.  In  423,  he  was  at  an  unusually  early 
period  of  life  consecrated  Bishop  of  Cyrus,  a  small  and  poor  town 
about  eighty  miles  from  Antioeh  and  one  hundred  and  twenty  from 


524  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

Apamea :  he  died  in  458 :  in  his  Greek  Scholia  upon  chapter  iii,  of  I  Cor- 
inthians, is  the  following  passage  iipon  verse  13. 

"We  believe  this  to  be  that  very  fire  of  our  purgatory  in  which 
the  souls  of  the  departed  are  proved  and  repurged  as  gold  is  in  the 
crucible." 

9.  St.  Augustin  was  born  at  Tagaste,  in  Numidia,  on  13th  of  No- 
vember, 354:  he  became  a  convert  to  a  new  life  and  to  penance  in 
August,  386,  and  was  baptized  by  St.  Ambrose,  Bishop  of  Milan,  on 
Easter  eve  in  387 ;  he  founded  the  institute  of  his  hermits  in  388,  but 
did  not  found  his  institute  of  nuns  until  after  he  was  raised  to  the  epis- 
copate; he  Avas  ordained  priest  in  390,  consecrated  Bishop  in  December, 
395,  and  continued  to  administer  the  See  of  Hippo,  from  the  death  of 
Valerius  in  396  to  his  own  death  in  430.  He  instituted  the  order  of 
canons  regular  in  the  early  part  of  his  episcopate.  No  Bishop  was  bet- 
ter acquainted  with  the  doctrines  and  practices  of  the  Church  than  was 
Augustin,  and  few  have  left  to  her  a  larger  legacy  of  valuable  works. 
In  his  Book  xxi.  Of  the  City  of  God,  chapter  16,  making  mention  of 
baptized  infants,  he  writes  of  one, 

"Not  only  is  he  not  prepared  for  eternal  torments,  but  after  death 
he  undergoes  no  purgatorial  affliction." 

In  the  24th  chapter  writing  of  faithful  adults  who  die  with  lesser 
sins, 

"It  is  plain,  that  their  spirits  being  purged  before  the  day  of 
judgment  by  the  temporal  pain  which  they  endure,  will  not  be  given 
over  to  the  punishment  of  eternal  fire." 

In  his  Book  v,  Homily  16. 

"They  who  have  done  things  worthy  of  temporal  pains,  will  pass 
through  a  certain  purging  fire,  of  which  the  apostle  says:  he  will  be 
saved,  yet  so  as  by  fire. ' ' 

In  his  Book  ii,  de  Genes,  against  the  Manichces,  chapter  20. 

' '  Whosoever  will  not  till  his  field,  but  will  allow  it  to  be  choked  with 
weeds,  hath  in  this  life  the  malediction  of  the  earth  in  all  his  works, 
and  after  this  life  will  have  either  the  fire  of  purgation,  or  eternal  pun- 
ishment. ' ' 

There  is  a  great  number  of  similar  passages  upon  the  same  subject 
in  his  works  and  those  of  the  other  authors  whom  I  have  quoted,  and  of 
several  whom  I  have  omitted.  In  his  Book  xxi  Of  the  City  of  God,  chap- 
ter 26,  and  in  his  Enchiridion,  this  father  states  that  a  question  may  be 
raised  as  to  whether  the  punishment  in  Purgatory  is  by  material  fire, 
and  if  so,  whether  by  the  same  sort  of  fire  as  that  of  which  mention  is 
made  in  Matt,  xxv,  "eternal  fire."    This  is  the  distinction  to  which  I 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO   WHITE  525 


before  alluded,  and  this  question  does  not  involve  that  of  the  existence  of 
a  purgatory,  but  regards  a  topic  in  which  faith  is  by  no  means  involved, 
viz.  the  nature  of  the  punishment. 

10.  St.  Jerom,  the  most  learned  commentator  of  the  holy  Scrip- 
tures, was  born  at  Stridonium,  now  Sdrigni,  near  the  famous  Aquileia, 
about  the  year  330.  Few,  if  any  of  the  fathers  of  the  Church  had  such 
ample  opportunities  of  knowledge  or  turned  them  to  better  account :  he 
died  on  the  30th  of  September  420.  Amongst  other  testimonies  of  his, 
is  the  following  from  the  latter  portion  of  his  Commentary  upon  Isaias: 

"As  we  believe  that  the  torments  of  the  devil,  and  of  all  those  who 
deny  the  truth,  and  of  the  impious  who  say  in  their  hearts  there  is  no 
God,  as  well  as  of  other  impious  sinners  are  eternal;  so  we  believe  that 
there  is  a  moderate  sentence  of  the  judge  tempered  with  clemency  for 
those  Christians  whose  works  are  to  be  tried  by  fire  and  purged. 

11.  St.  Gregory,  Bishop  of  Nyssa,  was  a  pious  and  learned  prelate, 
who  died  in  the  year  400 ;  his  see  was  in  Cappadocia,  near  the  lesser 
Armenia;  he  was  one  of  the  fathers  of  the  second  general  council,  (1, 
of  Constantinople)  in  the  year  381;  and  is  an  undoubted  witness  for 
the  faith  of  his  day.  In  his  Sermon  for  the  Dead,  are  to  be  found  the 
following  passages : 

"1.  Either  being  purged  in  the  present  life  by  prayers  and  the 
practice  of  wisdom,  or  expiated  after  death  by  the  furnace  of  a  purging 
fire,  if  he  desires  to  return  to  his  first  happiness. 

"2.  Having  gone  forth  from  the  body,  he  cannot  become  a  par- 
taker with  the  divinity,  unless  the  fire  of  purgatory  shall  have  taken 
away  the  spots  fastened  in  the  soul. 

"3.  Others  clearing  away  the  stains  of  matter,  after  this  life  by 
purging  fire." 

12.  St.  Ambrose,  the  renewned  Bishop  of  Milan,  was  born  about 
the  year  340,  in  Gaul,  where  his  father  was  prefect  of  the  Pretorium ;  he 
was  educated  in  Eome,  whither  his  mother  returned  after  his  father's 
death,  with  the  infant  Ambrose,  of  whose  education  she  took  the  most 
special  care.  In  368,  Anisius  Probus,  whom  Valentinian  made  pnc- 
torian  prefect  of  Italy,  appointed  Ambrose  his  assessor,  and  subse- 
quently governor  of  Liguria  and  Aemilia :  in  374,  at  the  unanimous  re- 
quest of  the  people,  this  governor  was  appointed  Bishop  of  Milan,  and 
consecrated  on  the  7th  of  December :  his  administration  exhibits  several 
most  instructive  lessons:  and  the  prelate  was  conspicuous  for  learning, 
eloquence,  zeal,  disinterestedness,  independence  and  piety:  he  died  on 
April  4,  in  the  year  397.     I  shall  make  but  one  quotation  from  his 


526  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


works:  in  his  Comment  on  Psalm  xxxvi,  (Prot.  Vers,  xxxvii,)  verse  14, 
he  has  the  following  passage : 

' '  Though  the  Lord  shall  save  his  servants,  we  shall  be  saved  by  faith ; 
we  shall  be  saved,  yet  so  as  by  fire.  Though  we  may  not  be  burned 
utterly,  we  shall  be  burned.  Yet  how  some  shall  remain  in  fire,  and 
others  only  pass  through  fire,  the  divine  Scripture  teaches  us  in  another 
place:  for  the  people  of  Egypt  was  drowned  in  the  Red  Sea,  but  the 
Hebrew  people  passed  through ;  Moses  passed  through,  but  Pharao  was 
overwhelmed  therein;  because  his  grievous  sins  sunk  him  down:  so  will 
the  sacrilegious  be  precipitated  in  the  lake  of  burning  fire. 

13.  St.  Basil,  Archbishop  of  Cajsarea,  in  Cappadocia,  was  born  in 
the  year  329,  of  parents  illustrious  for  their  descent  and  station,  as  well 
as  their  sanctity;  his  education  was  equally  attended  to  for  learning 
and  for  virtue;  and  his  labors,  erudition,  knowledge  and  sanctity,  con- 
spire to  make  him  one  of  the  brightest  ornaments  of  the  Church ;  he  died 
on  the  1st  of  January,  379.  In  his  9th  chapter  on  Isaias,  we  have  the 
following  paragraphs : 

"I.  If  therefore  by  confession  we  shall  have  uncovered  the  sin, 
we  have  thus  dried  upon  the  growing  grass,  such  indeed  as  would  have 
been  fit  to  be  fed  upon  and  devoured  by  the  purging  fire. 

"2.  He  doth  not  in  this  place  indeed  threaten  perfect  death  and 
extermination,  but  he  alludes  to  that  purgation  according  to  the  state- 
ment of  the  Apostle,  he  shall  be  saved  yet  so  as  by  fire. ' ' 

14.  Eusebius,  Bishop  of  Emissa,  or  Apamea,  now  Hems,  the  birth 
place  of  Heliogabalus,  about  30  miles  from  Aleppo  in  Syria,  upon  the 
Orontes,  flourished  about  the  year  340.  The  Homilies  attributed  to  him 
are  those  of  writers  of  not  a  later  date;  they  are  generally  supposed  to 
be  of  some  of  the  Gallican  prelates :  but  whoever  might  have  been  the 
writers,  their  doctrine  is  in  perfect  accordance  with  that  of  the  Church 
in  the  fourth  century.    In  Homily  3,  On  the  Epiphany  we  read, 

"This  punishment  of  hell  awaits  those  who  having  lost  or  not  pre- 
served baptism  will  perish  eternally;  but  they  who  shall  have  done 
things  worthy  of  temporary  punishment  will  pass  through  a  fiery  flood, 
through  shallows  dreadful  with  burning  globes." 

15.  St.  Hilary,  Bishop  of  Poictiers  in  Gaul,  was  styled  by  St. 
Augustin,  the  illustrious  doctor  of  the  Churches,  and  by  St.  Jerom,  a 
most  eloquent  man,  the  trumpet  of  the  Latins  against  the  Arians :  he  was 
banished  by  the  agency  of  Julian  the  apostate,  in  the  reign  of  Con- 
stantius,  in  356;  after  spending  some  years  in  the  East  he  was  per- 
mitted to  return  in  360 ;  and  died  at  Poictiers  in  the  year  368.  In  his 
Comment  on  Psalm  cxviii,  is  the  following  passage: 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO    WHITE  527 

"We  must  pass  through  that  untiring  fire,  in  which  are  to  be 
endured  those  heavy  punishments  of  a  soul  undergoing  expiation  for 
sins. ' ' 

16.  St.  Cyprian,  the  eminent  Bishop  of  Carthage,  who  suffered 
martyrdom  in  the  year  258,  left  some  valuable  testimonies  of  the  faith. 
In  his  Book  iv.  Epistle  2,  we  find  the  following  passage, 

"  It  is  one  thing  for  a  person  tormented  because  of  sins  to  be  purged 
during  a  long  period  and  to  be  corrected  during  a  considerable  time  by 
fire ;  a  different  thing  is  it  to  have  purged  away  all  his  sins  by  suffering 
martyrdom." 

17.  Origen,  the  famous  teacher  of  the  Catechetical  school  of  Alex- 
andria, flourished  in  the  year  250.  Amongst  other  passages,  he  has  left 
us  the  following  in  his  6th  Homily  on  Exodus, 

"He  that  shall  be  saved,  shall  be  saved  by  fire,  as  if  there  was  in 
him  any  thing  of  lead  commingled,  the  fire  would  produce  its  effect 
thereupon  and  resolve  it,  so  that  he  might  all  become  pure  gold. ' ' 

18.  Tertullian,  that  most  ancient  witness,  born  in  the  year  160, 
and  died  in  245,  has  left  us  amongst  other  passages  the  following  in  the 
XXXV  chapter  of  his  Book  of  the  Soul. 

"He  will  commit  you  to  the  lower  prison,  whence  you  will  not 
be  let  go,  unless  by  the  delay  of  your  resurrection,  and  every  lesser 
crime  being  expiated." 

In  the  same  book,  chapter  Iviii,  is  the  following: 

"Seeing  then,  we  understand  that  prison  which  the  gospel  demon- 
strates to  be  places  below,  and  the  last  farthing  we  interpret  every 
small  fault  to  be  there  punished  by  the  delay  of  resurrection,  no  man 
will  doubt  but  the  soul  doth  expiate  something  in  the  places  below. ' ' 

I  am  aware  that  to  several  persons  my  letters  are  tedious,  and  are 
looked  upon  as  too  long,  and  not  very  interesting,  but  the  subjects  are 
matters  of  importance,  and  I  write  not  so  much  to  amuse  my  readers, 
as  to  instruct  them :  hence  I  am  more  anxious  to  produce  a  full  con- 
viction of  truth  than  to  please  the  fancy.  I  have  here  adduced  a  num- 
ber of  witnesses,  selected  from  a  far  greater  body,  and  considerably  cur- 
tailed their  testimony :  but  I  believe  I  have  upset  White 's  position,  that 
purgatory  was  only  invented  after,  or  about  the  decline  of  the  peni- 
tential discipline,  for  I  have  showni  that  discipline  not  fully  abolished  in 
the  tenth  century,  although  about  the  end  of  the  fourth  and  the  beginning 
of  the  fifth,  its  decline  commenced  in  Constantinople — and  I  have  shown 
the  doctrine  of  the  existence  of  purgatory,  to  have  been  in  the  Church 
up  to  the  middle  of  the  second  age :  I  shall  afterwards  show  it  to  have  a 
much  higher  and  more  remote  antiquity.     Indeed  if  White  believed  as 


528  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

some  of  the  best,  and  wisest,  and  most  learned  of  the  English  Protestant 
clergy  did  upon  this  point,  he  never  would  have  written  the  wretched 
passage  which  we  now  consider. 

I  shall  here  close  this  letter,  and  in  my  next  I  shall  adduce  evidence 
to  prove  the  perpetual  usage  of  praying  for  the  dead,  after  which  I 
shall  lay  before  you  the  Scriptural  proofs,  and  other  historical  and  ra- 
tional motives,  to  establish  this  conclusion,  that  it  is  one  of  the  most 
ancient  and  universal  doctrines  of  true  religion,  that  there  is  a  purga- 
tory, and  that  the  souls  therein  detained  are  aided  by  the  suffrages  of 
the  faithful. — Meantime  I  remain. 

Yours,  and  so  forth,  B.  c. 

LETTER  XL. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Sept.  3,  1827. 
To  the  Roman  CatJwlics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends, — Before  I  proceed  to  adduce  evidence  of  the  fact, 
that  prayers  were  offered  up  for  the  deceased  brethren  by  the  Christians, 
I  shall  premise  that  a  purgatory  might  exist,  and  yet  the  souls  therein 
detained  not  be  aided  by  the  prayers  of  their  friends  on  earth:  but 
when  I  shall  have  shewn  that  such  prayers  were  offered,  it  is  mani- 
fest the  object  must  have  been,  the  benefit  of  the  dead,  or  the  solace  of 
the  living,  or  both.  In  examining  the  evidence,  therefore,  you  will  ob- 
serve what  was  the  object  of  the  prayer ;  what  benefit  was  expected ;  did 
they  who  prayed  seek  alleviation  for  the  dead,  or  only  solace  for  them- 
selves? If  we  shall  find  that  they  expected  the  first  effect,  it  will  tend 
much  to  support  the  conclusion  at  which  I  aim.  It  will  be  unnecessary 
for  me  to  give  the  character  and  era  of  the  witnesses  already  described; 
I  shall  therefore  only  explain  the  [character]  of  any  additional  persons 
whom  I  may  introduce. 

1.  St.  Malachy,  Archbishop  of  Armagh  and  Primate  of  Ireland, 
was  born  in  1094,  and  died  at  the  abbey  of  Clairvaux,  in  France,  on  the 
morning  of  November  2d,  1148,  being  the  solemnity  of  ''All  Souls,"  as 
is  still  observed.  His  life  was  written  by  St.  Bernard,  and  he  informs 
us  that  the  holy  sacrifice  was  offered  for  him  (chap,  xxxi)  and  that 
Malachy,  upon  coming  to  the  monastery,  informed  the  community  that 
he  came  there  to  die. 

"You  all  know  well  the  near  approach  of  that  day  which  I  have 
always  desired  should  be  that  of  my  dissolution.  I  know  in  whom  I 
have  placed  my  trust,  and  I  shall  not  be  defrauded  of  my  desire,  for  I 
already   have   a   portion    accomplished.     He   who   by   his   mercy   hath 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO   WHITE  529 

brought  me  to  this  place  which  I  have  desired,  will  not  refuse  the  ter- 
mination which  I  have  also  sought.  As  regards  this  worthless  body, 
this  is  its  place  of  rest:  as  regards  my  soul,  God,  who  saveth  those  who 
trust  in  him,  will  provide;  nor  is  it  a  small  hope  which  is  laid  up  for 
me  respecting  that  day,  upon  which  so  many  benefits  are  conferred  by 
the  living  upon  the  dead." 

Such  was  the  doctrine  that  had  prevailed  in  the  Irish  Church  re- 
specting the  prayers  for  the  dead,  upon  the  great  solemnity  of  "All 
Souls,"  and  in  this  doctrine  we  shall  see  that  she  agreed  with  all  other 
portions  of  the  universal  body  of  the  faithful.  In  chapter  xxx,  St.  Ber- 
nard relates  the  foundation  of  the  knowledge  which  the  monks  of  Clair- 
vaux  had  of  his  desire  to  die  upon  the  solemnity  of  "All  Souls."  When 
Malachy  had  been  on  a  former  occasion  at  the  monastery, 

"Being  asked,  at  one  time,  in  what  place,  if  he  had  the  choice,  he 
should  wish  to  die,  for  the  brethren  were  conversing  upon  the  subject, 
as  to  the  choice  of  each;  he  hesitated,  but  being  pressed,  'If  I  go  hence,' 
said  he,  'there  is  no  place  that  I  would  prefer  to  that  whence  I  may  in 
the  resurrection  arise  with  our  Apostle,'  he  meant  St.  Patrick.  'But  if 
I  were  from  home,  and  God  so  permitted  it,  I  have  chosen  Clairvaux. ' 
Being  asked  concerning  the  time,  he  said  'the  solemnity  of  All  Souls.'  " 

In  another  part  of  the  work  we  have  the  account  of  his  offering  up 
the  holy  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  for  the  repose  of  the  soul  of  his  sister. 

2.  The  venerable  Peter,  Abbot  of  Cluni,  wrote  a  book  in  defence 
of  the  doctrine  of  prayer  for  the  relief  of  the  dead,  against  the  Petro- 
brusians,  or  disciples  of  Peter  de  Bruis,  who  denied  that  it  was  useful 
to  them. 

3.  St.  Bernard,  in  his  66th  Sermon  on  the  Canticles,  charges  the 
Petrobrusians  with  error  in  denying  the  utility  of  such  prayer. 

4.  The  learned  commentator  Theophylact,  who  flourished  toward 
the  close  of  the  eleventh  century,  has  several  passages  which  bear  upon 
the  subject;  I  shall  produce  only  one,  from  his  Comment  on  Luke  xii. 

"I  say  this  respecting  the  oblation  and  alms  which  are  made  for 
the  deceased,  and  which  avail  not  a  little  even  for  those  who  have  died 
under  serious  offences. ' ' 

This  as  most  of  the  other  testimonies  which  I  produce,  regards  a 
public  and  well  known  practice  of  the  Church;  not  the  opinion  of  an 
individual. 

5.  St.  John  Damascen,  was  son  of  a  noble  Christian,  who  was  sec- 
retary to  the  Saracen  Caliph  towards  the  close  of  the  seventh  century: 
Ali  the  founder  of  the  Persian  Mohammedanism,  appointed  John  to 
be  governor  of  Dasmascus,  and  after  the  death  of  Mi,  when  the  chief 


530  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

power  passed  to  Moawyah,  the  first  dynast  of  the  Omniad  race,  John, 
thousfh  a  Christian,  stood  hiizh  in  his  esteem.  Having  resigned  his  ofifices 
and  honors,  John  withdrew  to  the  monastery  of  the  great  Laura,  of  St. 
Sabas,  near  Jerusalem,  and  there  gave  himself  up  to  the  study  and  con- 
templation of  the  Christian  doctrine ;  about  the  year  780  he  died  full 
of  years  and  good  works ;  being  the  first  who  reduced  Christian  theology 
to  a  systematic  course,  in  his  great  work,  The  Exposition  of  the  Orthodox 
Faith.  In  his  book  Concerning  Those  Who  Erred  from  the  Faith,  he 
adduced  the  testimony  of  St.  Denis,  St.  Athanasius,  SS.  Gregory  of 
Nazianzen,  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  and  others,  to  prove  that  at  all  times, 
orthodox  Christians  prayed  for  the  repose  of  the  deceased. 

6.  St.  Isidore,  of  Seville,  in  his  Book  of  Divine  Offices,  chapter 
xvii,  has  the  following  passage : 

"Unless  the  Catholic  Church  believed  that  sins  were  forgiven  to 
the  faithful  departed,  she  would  not  offer  alms  for  their  spirits,  nor  offer 
sacrifice  for  them  to  God. ' ' 

Thus  he  alludes  to  the  two  well  known  practices  of  alms  and  sac- 
rifice, as  well  as  prayer  being  offered  for  the  benefit  of  departed  souls. 

7.  St.  Gregory  the  Great,  Pope,  in  his  ivth  book  of  Dialogues, 
chapter  Iv,  [has]  the  following  passage: 

' '  The  offering  of  the  salutary  victim  is  usually  of  great  aid  to  souls, 
even  after  death,  so  that  the  souls  of  the  departed  appear  even  sometimes 
to  demand  it." 

The  custom  of  burying  the  dead  in  or  near  the  Churches,  is  pecu- 
liar to  Christianity.  We  shall  see  earlier  testimony  upon  which  to 
account  for  its  introduction;  but  so  far  as  it  goes  we  shall  now  use  the 
testimony  of  this  great  and  enlightened  Pope: — the  passage  is  found 
in  his  Dialogues,  book  iv,  chapter  50. 

"For  those  whom  weighty  sins  do  not  oppress,  it  is  useful  for  the 
dead  if  their  bodies  be  interred  at  the  Church,  because  their  relations 
sometimes  coming  thither,  recollect  them,  and  then  pour  out  prayers 
for  them  to  the  Lord. ' ' 

Surely  it  is  one  of  the  finest  traits  of  religion,  that  it  thus  unites  gen- 
erations, linking  in  a  bond  of  affection  the  living  and  the  dead,  and 
presenting  the  great  bulk  of  mankind  before  the  heavenly  tribunal, 
as  mutual  suppliants  for  mercy  for  each  other.  Indeed  it  is  a  holy 
and  an  endearing  communion. 

8.  Theodoret  relates  in  chapter  26,  book  iv,  of  his  History,  that 
when  the  relics  of  St.  John  Chrysostom,  were  borne  to  Constantinople 
in  the  year  434,  by  St.  Proclus;  the  emperor  Theodosius  and  his  sister 
Pulcheria  accompanied  them,  and  they  both  besought  God  for  the  pardon 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO    WHITE  531 

and  benefit  of  the  souls  of  their  deceased  parents  Arcadius  and  Eu- 
doxia;  this  is  related  not  as  an  extraordinary  occurrence,  but  as  one 
in  the  usual  and  well  known  order  of  things. 

9.  St.  Paulinus,  of  Nola,  was  born  in  Bourdeaux,  in  Gaul,  in  the 
year  353;  his  father  being  praetorian  prefect  of  that  province,  and  at 
one  time  first  magistrate  of  the  western  empire;  his  talents  were  of  the 
first  order,  his  masters  of  the  most  select  description ;  the  famous  Au- 
sonius  was  his  teacher  of  rhetoric  and  poetry,  and  his  acquirements 
were  of  the  most  extensive  range:  he  was  consul  before  the  twenty-fifth 
year  of  his  age.  About  the  year  390,  he  and  his  wife  having  determined 
upon  leading  lives  of  retirement,  he  sold  his  vast  possessions,  the  pro- 
duce of  which  he  bestowed  in  alms,  and  having  resigned  his  seat  in  the 
Senate,  and  his  other  offices,  entered  a  monastery:  he  was  soon  after- 
wards ordained  priest,  at  the  request  of  the  people  of  Barcelona,  in 
393.  His  great  devotion  towards  St.  Felix,  led  him  to  a  little  sequest- 
ered spot  in  Italy,  near  the  tomb  of  this  holy  priest,  his  desire  being  to 
serve  in  the  most  humble  capacity,  to  decorate  his  soul  with  virtues,  as 
it  was  enriched  with  learning.  In  the  year  409,  he  was  called  from  his 
retreat  to  fill  the  see  of  Nola :  he  died  in  the  year  431.  A  virtuous  lady 
named  Flora  having  buried  her  son  Cynsgius  in  the  Church  of  St.  Felix, 
asked  Paulinus  what  benefit  was  derived  therefrom,  and  at  the  request 
of  Paulinus,  Augustine,  the  Bishop  of  Hippo,  as  an  explanation,  wrote 
his  book  De  Cura  Mortuorum,  "Of  the  Care  of  the  Deceased."  Writing 
to  Pammachus  after  the  death  of  his  wife,  he  comforts  him  with  the  as- 
surance that  he  had  satisfied  her  body  with  the  tears  which  he  shed, 
and  her  soul  with  alms  which  he  bestowed  on  her  account.  In  his 
Epistle  V  to  the  Bishop  Delphinus,  concerning  the  death  of  his  own 
brother,  he  recommends  his  soul  to  his  prayers,  and  amongst  others,  has 
the  following  passage : 

"Obtain  by  your  prayers  pardon  for  him,  and  that  a  drop  flowing 
from  the  least  finger  of  your  holiness  might  sprinkle  his  soul  with  re- 
freshment. ' ' 

Writing  upon  the  same  subject  in  his  first  letter  to  Amandus,  he  has 
the  following: 

"Wherefore  we  earnestly  entreat  you  as  a  brother  to  unite  in  our 
labors  of  prayer:  that  the  merciful  God  would  vouchsafe  to  refresh 
his  soul  with  drops  of  compassion  by  your  prayers. ' ' 

10.  St.  Augustine  has  so  much  upon  the  subject  that  the  difficulty 
consists  not  in  the  discovery  but  in  the  selection.  In  his  book  Of  the 
Care  of  the  Departed,  the  occasion  of  which  I  have  just  shown,  we  have 
the  following  passage,  chapter  1 : 


532  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

"We  read  in  the  book  of  the  Macchabees,  that  sacrifice  was  offered 
for  the  dead ;  but,  if  this  never  had  been  read  in  the  old  Scriptures,  the 
authority  of  the  universal  Church,  which  upon  this  subject  is  glaringly 
evident,  is  not  small;  where  in  the  prayers  of  the  priest  which  are 
poured  out  at  the  high  altar  to  the  Lord  our  God,  their  commendation 
of  the  departed  has  its  proper  place." 

In  this  passage  we  have  from  St.  Augustine  evidence  that  the  custom 
was  glaring,  general  and  authoritative,  and  that  in  the  liturgy  there  was 
a  proper  place  for  such  prayers.  The  next  passage  not  only  shows  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church  in  this  day  to  be  that  those  prayers  of  the  faith- 
ful on  earth  were  useful,  but  that  the  faithful  also  besought  the  saints 
in  heaven  to  pray  for  their  deceased  friends,  and  that  this  was  an  ad- 
ditional benefit :  it  is  found  in  chapter  4,  of  the  same  book. 

"When,  therefore,  the  mind  recollects  where  the  body  of  its  be- 
loved friend  is  interred,  and  there  is  brought  to  the  memory  the  place 
venerable  by  the  name  of  the  martyr,  the  affection  of  the  person  who 
recollects  and  prays  commends  the  beloved  soul  to  the  same  martyr; 
which  custom,  when  adhered  to  by  the  faithful,  is,  beyond  doubt,  most 
beneficial  to  the  departed." 

The  following  beautiful  passage  from  the  same  chapter  is  not  only  a 
clear  testimony  of  the  doctrine  and  custom  of  the  Church  at  that  period, 
but  moreover  exhibits  the  charitable  affection  of  the  Church,  and  the 
excellence  of  the  communion  of  saints. 

"We  must  not  pass  over  the  supplications  for  the  souls  of  the  de- 
parted, which  the  Church  regulates  to  be  made  in  a  general  commem- 
oration for  all  those  who  die  in  the  Christian  and  Catholic  society, 
even  though  she  does  not  mention  all  the  names ;  that  their  one  pious,  com- 
mon mother,  the  Church,  might  for  this  end  supply  the  deficiency  for 
those  who  left  no  parents,  or  children,  or  relations,  or  friends." 

The  same  doctrine  is  found  in  an  hundred  other  places  of  his 
works,  and  in  his  book  Of  Heresies,  he  mentions  that  the  heresy  of 
Aerius  consisted  in  denying  the  utility  and  propriety  of  offering  sac- 
rifice for  the  dead. 

11.  St.  John  Chrysostom  was  born  at  Antioch,  about  the  year 
344;  his  father  Secundus,  was  the  master  of  the  horse,  or  commander 
in  chief  of  the  imperial  troops  at  Syria,  his  mother  was  left  at  the  age 
of  twenty  a  widow,  with  ample  means,  and  a  daughter  and  son,  for 
whom  she  provided  the  best  teachers.  John's  master  of  eloquence  was 
the  famous  Libanius,  who  declared  this  pupil  of  his  to  be  a  treasure  to 
the  empire:  in  the  study  of  philosophy  under  Andragatius  he  made 
astonishing  progress :  in  early  youth  he  paid  great  attention  to  the  truths 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO   WHITE  533 

of  religion;  at  the  age  of  twenty,  he  pleaded  for  some  time  at  the  bar; 
the  first  dignities  of  the  empire  lay  open  before  him;  but  upon  mature 
reflection  he  embraced  a  life  of  retirement;  he  was  ordained  deacon 
by  St.  Meletius,  Bishop  of  Antioch,  in  the  year  381,  and  priest  by 
Flavian,  the  successor  of  this  holy  bishop  in  386 :  twelve  years  after- 
wards, he  was  raised  to  the  see  of  Constantinople:  and  after  a  variety 
of  trials  and  persecutions,  he  died  a  prisoner  and  exile  in  Cappadocia 
on  the  14th  of  September,  407.  The  extraordinary  eloquence  with  which 
he  was  gifted,  caused  him  to  receive  the  appellation  of  Chrysostom  or 
Golden  mouth,  and  his  erudition  and  virtue  were  conspicious.  In  his 
41st  Homily  on  the  First  Epistle  of  the  Corinthians,  we  find  the  following 
passages. 

"1.  The  deceased  is  aided  not  by  tears,  but  by  prayers,  by  sup- 
plications, and  by  alms  deeds. 

"2.  Let  us  not  be  weary  of  giving  to  the  departed  by  offering 
up  prayers  for  them." 

Those  passages  from  amongst  several  others  clearly  exhibit  his 
doctrine,  which  was  that  of  the  whole  Church  that  was  in  his  com- 
munion. The  next  extract  from  the  69th  of  his  homilies  to  the  people 
of  Antioch  shows  not  only  that  it  was  his  doctrine  and  that  of  the  Church, 
but  that  moreover  it  was  a  doctrine  delivered  by  the  Apostles,  or  else 
we  must  say  that  neither  he  nor  his  auditors  knew  what  was  the  history 
of  their  doctrine  in  the  three  centuries  that  intervened. 

"Those  things  were  not  rashly  enacted  by  the  Apostles,  that  in 
the  tremendous  mysteries  there  should  be  commemorations  made  of  the 
departed;  for  they  knew  that  great  profit  arises  to  them  therefrom. 
A  mighty  benefit." 

12.  St.  Jerome  testifies  the  doctrine  in  many  places;  amongst 
others,  in  his  Epistle  to  Pammachus,  on  the  death  of  his  wife  Paulina. 

"Other  husbands  scatter  violets,  roses,  lilies,  and  purple  flowers 
on  the  tombs  of  their  consorts,  our  Pammachus  moistens  the  holy  re- 
mains, the  venerated  bones,  with  the  balsam  of  alms;  he  cherishes 
the  resting  ashes  with  those  ointments  and  odors,  knowing  that  it  is 
written,  as  water  extinguishes  life,  so  do  alms  deeds  sin." 

13.  St.  Epiphanius  was  born  about  the  year  310,  at  Eleuthero- 
polis,  a  city  of  Judea:  he  was  master  of  the  Hebrew,  Greek,  Egyptian, 
Syrian  and  Latin  languages,  and  very  intimate  with  St.  Hilarion,  and 
other  eminent  anchorets  and  holy  men.  Having  spent  some  time  in 
retirement  in  Egypt,  he  returned  to  Palestine  and  built  a  monastery  in 
the  year  333,  and  devoted  himself  with  great  assiduity  to  prayer  and 
study.     He  was  looked  upon  as  the  oracle  of  religious  information  in 


534  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

Palestine ;  in  the  year  367  he  was  chosen  Bishop  of  Salamis,  or  Con- 
stantia,  in  the  island  of  Cyprus,  and  was  intimate  with  most  of  the  great 
men  who  decorated  the  Church  during  the  latter  period  of  his  life ;  he 
died  on  his  way  from  Constantinople  to  Salamis,  in  the  year  403. 
Amongst  his  works  is  one  on  heresies,  in  which  he  enumerates  twenty 
before  Christ,  and  eighty  in  the  first  four  centuries  of  Christianity: 
the  seventy-fifth  of  which  is  that  of  Aerius  who  denied  the  utility  and 
efficacy  of  prayer  for  the  dead,  and  the  utility  and  efficacy  of  which 
Epiphanius  mentions  as  doctrines  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 

14.  St.  Ambrose  in  his  Book  ii,  epistle  8,  to  Faustinus,  concerning 
the  death  of  his  sister: 

"Wherefore,  I  think,  that  she  is  not  so  much  to  be  wept  for,  as 
followed  by  prayers,  nor  is  her  soul  to  be  made  sorrowful  by  your  tears, 
but  rather  recommended  to  God  by  oblations." 

In  his  orations  on  the  death  of  Theodosius,  of  Valentinian,  and  of 
his  brother  Satyrus,  he  prays  for  the  repose  of  their  souls,  and  promises 
that  he  will  offer  the  sacrifice  for  this  object. 

15.  St.  Gregory,  Nazianzen,  was  born  at  Arianzum,  an  obscure 
village  in  the  territory  of  Nazianzum,  a  station  or  town  of  Cappadocia, 
of  which  his  father  was  made  bishop  about  the  year  330,  when  Gregory 
was  about  five  or  six  years  of  age :  at  a  proper  age,  Gregory,  after  having 
learned  in  the  schools  of  Cappadocia,  went  to  Cfesarea,  in  Palestine, 
where  existed  a  famous  school  of  eloquence,  thence  to  Alexandria,  in 
Egypt,  and  subsequently  to  Athens,  to  become  perfect  in  his  studies. 
During  this  period,  he  became  intimate  with  St.  Basil,  and  in  Athens 
they  had  Julian,  the  apostate,  as  a  fellow  student,  in  the  year  55.  Greg- 
ory at  this  time  foretold  his  future  misconduct,  from  his  deportment. 
Lea\ing  Athens,  he  went  to  Constantinople,  where  he  met  his  brother 
Ceesarius,  who  had  studied  medicine,  and  was  become  chief  physician 
to  the  Emperor  Constantius.  Many  efforts  were  used  to  induce  Gregory 
to  plead  at  the  bar,  or  to  teach  rhetoric ;  but  he  had  made  up  his  mind 
for  religious  retirement,  and  returned  to  Nazianzum,  where  in  religious 
solitude  he  continued  to  pray  and  study.  In  361,  he  was  ordained  priest, 
and  was  consecrated  Bishop  of  Sasima,  by  St.  Basil,  then  Bishop  of 
Cffisarea,  in  372.  He  was  never  able  to  get  possession  of  his  see,  owing 
to  the  opposition  of  Schismatics,  and  his  peaceable  disposition.  In 
378,  he  was  [prevailed  on]  to  accept  the  see  of  Constantinople,  long 
harassed  by  heresy,  schism  and  intrigue,  [from  which]  after  having 
endured  great  opposition,  and  many  insults,  and  having  done  incalcu- 
lable good  to  religion,  he  retired  for  the  sake  of  peace.  In  381,  after 
his  resignation,  he  withdrew  to  Nazianzum,  and  having  procured  the 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO   WHITE  535 

consecration  of  Eulalias,  for  that  see,  he  spent  the  remainder  of  his 
days  in  prayer  and  meditation,  dying  at  a  private  retreat,  near  Nazi- 
anzum,  in  389,  or  391.  Gregory  is  then  an  excellent  witness  of  the 
doctrine  of  his  day.  In  his  oration  on  the  death  of  his  brother  Cassarius, 
he  prays  for  the  departed  faithful,  as  well  as  for  the  living. 

"Let  us  recommend  to  mercy,  both  our  own  souls,  and  those  of  the 
persons  who  being,  as  it  were,  more  forward  on  their  journey,  have  come 
before  us  to  the  resting  place." 

And  in  conclusion,  he  prays  for  the  rest  of  his  brother  Caesarius. 

16.  St.  Cyril,  Archbishop  of  Jerusalem,  was  born  in  or  near  that 
city  in  the  year  315.  No  one  of  the  ancients  studied  more  closely  the 
holy  Scriptures,  the  previous  Christian  writers,  and  the  pagan  philoso- 
pers.  He  was  ordained  priest,  by  Maximus,  Archbishop  of  Jerusalem, 
in  345,  and  was  by  him  appointed  eatechist,  to  teach  the  doctrine  to  the 
catechumens,  and  preacher  to  expound  it  to  the  people — his  Catechetical 
Sermons  for  the  year  347  or  348,  are  preserved  and  are  a  most  prec- 
ious treasure — he  succeeded  Maximus  in  the  episcopacy  in  the  end  of 
the  year  350,  and  witnessed  the  disappointment  of  those  who  attempted 
to  rebuild  the  Jewish  Temple,  thus  to  disprove  the  divinity  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion.  After  persecution  and  banishment  from  his  see,  he  re- 
turned thereto  in  361,  and  assisted  at  the  second  general  council,  1st  of 
Constantinople,  in  381,  and  died  in  the  year  386.  The  following  are 
passages  taken  from  his  last  Catechesis. 

"1.  We  also  pray  for  the  deceased  holy  fathers,  bishops,  and  in 
general  all  who  are  dead,  believing  that  this  will  be  a  great  succor  to 
those  souls  for  which  prayer  is  offered,  whilst  the  holy  and  tremendous 
victim  lies  present. 

"2.  If  a  king  being  offended  at  certain  persons,  banish  them,  and 
their  friends  offer  a  rich  garland  for  them,  will  he  not  be  moved  to 
remit  their  punishment?  In  like  manner  we  offering  up  prayers  to 
God  for  the  dead,  though  they  be  sinners,  do  not  make  a  garland,  but 
we  offer  Christ  sacrificed  for  our  sins,  striving  to  propitiate  and  make 
our  merciful  God  beneficent  to  them  and  to  ourselves. ' ' 

17.  St.  Basil  compiled  a  liturgy  still  used  in  several  Greek  Church- 
es, and  which  contains  prayers  for  the  commemoration  of  the  dead, 
to  obtain  their  repose. 

18.  Ephrem  of  Edessa,  one  of  the  most  illustrious  and  learned 
teachers  of  the  Syriac  Church,  was  born  in  the  district  of  Nisibis,  in 
Mygdonia,  a  division  of  Mesopotamia,  before  the  year  290,  his  parents 
were  poor  but  very  industrious  country  people — he  attained  the  age 
of  eighteen  years  before  he  was  baptized,  and  soon  after  his  baptism 


536  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

he  retired  to  a  monastery,  in  which  he  had  hard  labor,  much  prayer, 
and  considerable  study.  About  the  year  340,  he  went  to  Edessa,  and 
was  ordained  deacon  of  that  Church.  He  was  not  deeply  versed  in 
philosophy  of  the  schools,  but  was  powerful  in  that  given  by  nature: 
he  had  an  excellent  turn  for  poetry,  and  composed  many  pieces  cal- 
culated to  convey  the  truths  of  the  Gospel,  and  the  principles  of 
morality  to  the  mind  of  the  hearer:  he  wrote  his  native  language, 
Syriac,  with  facility  and  elegance,  was  quite  familiar  with  the  holy 
Scriptures,  and  deeply  learned  in  the  doctrines  of  Christianity:  he  was 
also  gifted  with  splendid  eloquence.  He  made  great  numbers  of  con- 
verts; but  never  could  be  induced,  because  of  humility,  to  receive  the 
order  of  priesthood.  He  died  about  the  year  878.  His  testament,  or 
will  commences, 

"I,  Ephrem  die.  Be  it  known  unto  you  all,  that  I  write  this  tes- 
tament to  intreat  of  you  that  you  would  assidously  remember  me  in  your 
prayers  after  my  decease:  for  I  have  spent  my  life  in  vanity  and  in 
iniquity. ' ' 

He  particularly  requests  to  have  alms,  oblations,  (masses,)  and 
prayers  made  on  the  thirtieth  day  from  his  decease. 

19.  St.  Athanasius,  the  great  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  was  born 
about  the  year  296,  and  died  on  Thursday,  May  2,  in  the  year  373. 
This  great  luminary  of  the  Church  certainly  was  well  acquainted  with 
her  doctrines.  In  his  work,  ad  Antioch,  ix,  34,  he  asks,  whether  de- 
parted souls  benefit  by  the  prayers  of  the  living :  to  which  he  gives  the 
answer  that  unquestionably  they  do, 

20.  Eusebius,  Archbishop  of  Ccesarea,  the  historian ;  one  of  the  most 
learned  of  the  ancient  prelates,  died  in  339,  fifteen  years  after  his  ap- 
pointment ;  in  his  fourth  book  Of  the  Life  of  the  Emperor  Constantine, 
he  states  that  the  Emperor  desired  to  be  buried  in  a  splendid  Church, 
that  his  soul  might  have  the  benefit  of  a  multitude  of  prayers. 

21.  St.  Cyprian,  Book  i,  Epistle  9,  has  the  following  passage: 
"The  Bishop,  our  predecessors,  enacted  that  no  one  dying  should 

nominate  any  of  the  brotherhood  of  the  clergy  to  be  the  executor  or 
guardian  of  his  effects,  and  that  if  any  person  would  do  so,  there  should 
be  no  offering  made  for  him,  nor  sacrifice  offered  for  his  repose. 

He  farther  on  applies  the  principle  of  this  statute  to  a  special  case. 

"And  therefore  since  Victor  has  dared  to  appoint  Germinius  Faust- 
inus,  a  Priest,  his  executor,  contrary  to  the  law  lately  made  by  the  Pre- 
lates in  their  council,  no  oblation  can  be  made  by  you  for  his  rest,  nor  any 
prayer  on  his  behalf. ' ' 

In  this  case  we  see  that  before  the  year  250,  the  refusal  to  offer 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO   WHITE  537 


up  prayers  or  mass  for  the  repose  of  the  departed,  was  considered  to 
be  a  severe  punishment. 

22.  Tertullian,  in  his  book  Of  the  Soldier's  Crown,  places  amongst 
the  traditions  of  the  Apostles  the  suffrages  and  prayers  for  the  dead: 
and  in  his  book  On  Monagamy,  is  the  following  passage  regarding  the 
conduct  of  a  Christian  wife  towards  her  deceased  husband. 

"Let  her  pray  for  him,  and  demand  earnestly  refreshment  for 
his  soul,  and  fellowship  in  the  first  or  early  resurrection:  and  let  her 
have  sacrifice  offered  on  the  anniversaries  of  his  death,  for  if  she  do 
not  this  she  has  repudiated  him  as  far  as  lies  in  her  power. ' ' 

In  other  places  the  same  doctrine  is  to  be  found. 

23.  The  ancient  work  attributed  to  St.  Denis  the  Areopagite,  On 
the  Ecclesiastical  Hierarchy,  is  by  many  and  judicious  writers  attributed 
to  this  convert  of  St.  Paul  the  Apostle,  whilst  a  greater  number  of  others 
equally  if  not  more  erudite,  state  that  there  is  not  sufficient  proof  of 
the  assertion.  But  both  parties  are  fully  agreed  that  the  work  is  most 
ancient  and  orthodox,  and  if  not  written  in  the  first  century,  that  it 
at  all  events  contains  the  doctrine  of  that  age.  Chapter  vii,  part  3, 
has  the  following  passage : 

' '  The  venerable  Prelate  then  drawing  near  repeats  the  holy  prayer 
over  the  dead  person:  in  that  prayer  he  beseeches  the  divine  clemency 
to  remit  to  the  deceased  all  sins  committed  by  human  infirmity,  and, 
that  it  might  place  him  in  light  and  in  the  region  of  those  who  live." 

Those  are  the  very  expressions  which  the  Church  this  day  uses  at 
interments,  and  which  she  preserves  as  those  which  the  Apostles  first 
used  on  similar  occasions. 

24.  St.  Clement  was  of  Jewish  extraction  and  converted  to  Chris- 
tianity in  the  year  62,  if  not  previously,  as  we  find  him  in  that  year  a 
companion  and  fellow  sufferer  of  St.  Paul  at  Philippi :  he  accompanied 
the  Apostle  to  Kome,  was  consecrated  Bishop  of  St.  Peter,  whom  he 
survived,  as  he  did  also  his  two  immediate  successors,  Linus  and  Cletus, 
when  in  the  year  89  or  90,  he  succeeded  to  the  Papacy,  which  he  filled 
in  the  year  100.  Many  writings  are  attributed  to  him,  with  little  foun- 
dation. But  the  liturgy  is  admitted  by  all  good  critics  to  be  his ;  or  if 
not,  to  be  so  ancient,  and  so  authentic  as  to  be  a  copy  or  imitation  of 
what  he  used  and  appointed ;  and  in  this  liturgy  we  find  the  description 
of  a  long  prayer  for  the  repose  of  the  deceased. 

I  have  thus  adduced  evidence  to  prove  that  it  was  the  custom  of 
the  Catholic  Church  at  all  times  to  pray  for  the  repose  of  the  souls  of 


538  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


the  faithful  departed.     In  my  next  I  shall  adduce  other  evidence  respect- 
ing the  topics  connected  with  the  doctrine  of  Purgatory. 

Yours,  and  so  forth, 

B.  c. 


LETTER  XLI. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Sept.  24,  1827. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends, — In  following  up  the  evidence  for  the  existence  of 
a  Purgatory,  and  that  the  souls  therein  detained  are  helped  by  the 
suffrages  of  the  faithful,  it  might  not  be  amiss  to  remind  you  that  all 
which  is  necessary  for  me  to  prove,  in  order  to  refute  White  is,  that  the 
belief  of  this  doctrine  existed  before  the  abandonment  of  the  ancient 
discipline  of  canonical  penances:  and  that  period  might  be  properly 
fixed  about  the  close  of  the  tenth  century.  I  believe  that  I  have  more 
than  done  this;  yet  as  I  am  upon  the  subject,  permit  me  to  go  farther 
into  its  examination.  I  have  laid  before  you  the  testimony  of  eccles- 
iastical writers.  I  shall  now  give  you  the  testimony  of  public  documents 
and  monuments.  The  former  will  consist  in  the  declarations  of  public 
bodies,  the  latter  will  be  a  collection  of  facts,  customs,  and  memorials. 
I  shall  not  here  adduce  the  declarations  of  the  Councils  of  Trent, 
of  Florence,  and  of  Lateran,  nor  shall  I  enumerate  more  than -a  few  of 
the  earlier  synods  held  in  different  places,  from  which  it  will  be  seen 
that  ours,  was  not  a  doctrine  confined  to  a  single  nation  or  a  few  spots, 
but  was  that  of  the  universal  Church. 

In  the  year  868,  a  National  Council  was  held  at  Worms  on  the  Rhine, 
then  a  suffragan  see  of  Mayence,  in  which  a  question  was  raised  as  to 
the  propriety  of  praying  and  offering  mass  for  the  repose  of  the  souls 
of  those  persons  who  had  been  hanged  upon  the  gallows,  after  convic- 
tion in  a  criminal  court,  and  it  was  determined  that  they  were  equally 
entitled  to  the  mercies  of  Christ  as  other  sinners,  and  therefore  not  to 
be  deprived  of  the  ordinary  aid  of  religion,  and  [that]  they  were  to 
be  prayed  for  after  death. 

In  the  year  813,  the  second  provincial  council  of  Chalons  on  the 
Saone,  was  held  at  the  request  of  the  Emperor  Charlemagne :  the  thirty- 
ninth  canon  requires  that  in  every  mass  that  is  celebrated,  there  should 
be  prayers  offered  for  the  repose  of  the  souls  of  the  departed  faithful. 
We  shall  see  that  special  masses  for  their  repose  had  been  usual  from 
the  very  origin  of  Christianity,  but  though  the  liturgies  had  desired  this 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  539 

commemoration  of  the  dead  in  the  holy  sacrifice,  still  in  several  places 
neglect  and  omission  had  to  be  corrected  by  provincial  councils. 

Spelman  gives  us  the  following  form  of  a  prayer  for  the  dead,  found 

in  the  twenty-seventh  canon  of  the  Synod  of  Cloveshoo,  in  Kent,  in  747 : 

"0  Lord,  we  beseech  thee,  grant  that  the  soul  of  such  a  person 

may  be  secured  in  a  state  of  repose,  and  admitted  with  the  rest  of  thy 

saints  into  the  regions  of  light  and  bliss." 

I  could  produce  several  others  more  full  than  this,  but  Kapin,  who 
would,  if  he  could,  have  made  a  different  statement,  adduces  this  to  show 
the  notoriety  of  the  fact,  that  prayer  for  the  dead  was  then  common  in 
the  English  Church,  a  testimony  which  White  appears  to  have  over- 
looked. 

The  first  Council  of  Braga,  in  Portugal,  then  a  part  of  Spain,  was 
held  in  the  year  563,  on  the  first  of  May,  under  the  reign  of  King  Theo- 
domirus :  the  Archbishop  Lucretius  presided ;  a  number  of  canons  were 
made  against  the  Priscillianists,  others  for  discipline. 

The  sixteenth  canon  prohibits  the  prayers  of  the  Church  to  be  of- 
fered for  the  repose  of  the  souls  of  those  guilty  of  suicide,  forbids  com- 
memoration to  be  made  of  them  in  the  mass,  and  commands  that  no 
funeral  service  shall  be  performed  for  them  nor  for  criminals  who  shall 
have  been  executed  pursuant  to  the  law.  The  twenty-first  canon  reg- 
ulates that  the  alms  and  offerings  made  by  the  faithful  on  behalf  of  the 
dead,  shall  be  equally  divided  twice  in  the  year  amongst  the  clergy 
W'ho  are  to  pray  for  their  repose. 

Regulations  regarding  prayers  for  the  dead  are  to  be  found  in  the 
canons  of  the  second  Council  of  Orleans,  which  assembled  on  the  23rd 
of  June,  533,  in  which  were  twenty-six  Bishops  of  the  province  of  Lyons 
and  Aquitain ;  its  canons  were  but  the  renewal  of  more  ancient  laws. 

The  Council  which  is  generally  called  the  Fourth  of  Carthage, 
in  Africa,  was  held  in  the  consulship  of  Eutychianus  and  Honorius  in 
the  year  398,  and  gave  the  most  full  code  of  discipline  which  we  find 
about  that  period.  Amongst  other  regulations,  its  seventy-ninth  canon 
enacts,  that  persons  subjected  to  public  penance,  who  having  done, 
as  far  as  they  were  able,  the  several  works  imposed,  but  who  die  at  sea 
without  having  received  the  communion  or  having  been  formally  re- 
conciled, shall  nevertheless  have  their  share  in  the  prayers  and  oblations 
for  the  faithful  deceased,  and  commands  that  they  shall  be  prayed  for 
and  commemorated  after  their  decease. 

Upon  this  document  I  shall  only  remark,  that  St.  Augustin,  Bishop 
of  Hippo,  was  a  member  of  this  council,  and  that  White's  position, 
that   it   was   upon   "the   cessation   of   penitential    discipline,   tradition 


540  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


brought  purgatory  to  light,"  is  altogether  destroyed  by  this  single  ease, 
for  it  exhibits  both  as  fully  co-existing,  long  before  the  cessation  or  de- 
cline of  the  discipline.  I  can  scarcely  believe  that  Bishop  Kemp  and 
his  associates  are  so  little  acquainted  with  canon  law,  as  not  to  have 
known  this  enactment,  and  am  therefore  at  a  loss  to  know  how  they 
could  have  so  little  respect  for  their  own  characters,  as  scholars,  as  to 
have  recommended  White's  book. 

A  council  had  been  held  in  the  same  city  in  the  previous  year,  dur- 
ing the  consulship  of  Cffisarius  and  Atticus,  397,  the  twenty-ninth  canon 
of  which  directs  that  mass  shall  not  be  celebrated  by  any  but  persons 
who  are  fasting,  except  on  the  Thursday  before  Easter,  and  to  remedy 
a  contrary  abuse  which  had  been  creeping  in,  of  priests  celebrating  the 
mass  after  having  broken  fast,  to  aid  the  souls  of  persons  who  had  died 
that  day,  at  a  late  hour;  it  directs  that  if  prayers  are  to  be  offered  in 
such  a  case  for  Bishops  or  any  other  of  the  faithful  departed,  in  the 
afternoon,  prayers  only  shall  be  offered,  but  not  the  sacrifice,  on  that  day, 
nor  by  a  person  who  has  broken  his  fast. 

In  the  Arabic  copy  of  the  acts  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  held  in  the 
year  325,  the  sixty-fifth  canon  directs  that  upon  the  demise  of  a  Bishop, 
notice  should  be  given  of  his  death  to  all  the  Churches  and  INIonasteries 
which  were  within  his  jurisdiction,  that  prayers  might  be  offered  for 
the  repose  of  his  soul. 

St.  Epiphanius,  the  learned  Archbishop  of  Salamis,  who  lived  from 
310  to  403,  in  his  famous  work  On  Heresies,  gives  the  seventy-fifth  place 
to  Aerius,  the  Constantinopolian  monk,  who,  displeased  and  disap- 
pointed at  the  elevation  of  his  friend  Eustathius  to  the  government  of 
that  see,  through  opposition  denied  the  superiority  of  the  order  of  Bishop 
to  that  of  Priest,  and  appears  also  to  have  been  the  first  who  denied  the 
efficacy  of  prayers  for  the  dead:  this  heresiarch  was  a  cotemporary  of 
Epiphanius,  and  his  doctrine  was  by  all  Christians  declared  to  be  a 
novelty,  which  contradicted  that  which  had  been  received  from  the 
Apostles.  St.  Augustine  gives  it  the  fifty-third  place  in  his  catalogue 
of  heresies.  It  soon  became  extinct,  and  so  continued  for  some  centuries, 
until  the  Waldenses  revived  it. 

I  come  now  to  another  series  of  documents ;  the  liturgies  of  the  early 
Church,  in  all  of  which  we  find  prayers  for  the  departed  faithful,  that 
they  may  be  delivered  from  suffering  and  brought  to  the  enjoyment  of 
eternal  glory.  Surely  Bishop  Kemp  will  not  venture  to  assert  that  the 
liturgies  of  St.  James,  of  St.  Basil,  of  St.  Chrysostom,  or  of  St.  Ambrose, 
were  not  in  existence  before  "the  cessation  of  penitential  discipline."  I 
shall  make  a  general  remark,  applicable  to  all  the  liturgies,  before  I  corns 


two  CALUMNIES    OF  J.   BLANCO   WHITE  541 

to  their  special  enumeration.  In  the  first  ages  of  the  Church,  it  was  not 
usual  to  have  written  copies  of  the  liturgy,  but  the  clergy  learned  from 
each  other,  and  repeated  from  memory;  the  faithful  also  who  were  ad- 
mitted cautiously  to  holy  mysteries,  were  charged  to  be  extremely  careful 
not  to  speak  of  them  before  strangers,  who  were  admitted  only  to  the 
mass  of  the  catechumens,  and  the  sermon.  The  Church  of  England, 
after  separating  from  the  Catholic  Church,  by  way  of  following  the  an- 
cient practice,  dismisses  the  congregation  after  morning  prayer  and  ser- 
mon, and  retains  only  those  who  are  to  receive  during  the  communion 
service.  Both  in  the  early  Greek  and  Latin  Churches,  the  betraying  of 
the  mystery,  or  of  the  sacred  books,  was  looked  upon  as  equivalent  to 
apostacy.  Thus  the  liturgies  were  not  written  until  towards  the  close  of 
the  fourth  century,  and  the  first  complaint  which  we  hear  of  any  at- 
tempt to  change  them,  is  against  Nestorius  in  the  beginning  of  the  fifth 
age.  Previously  to  their  separation,  it  is  believed  that  the  Apostles,  who 
had  during  many  years  celebrated  together,  had  agreed  upon  an  outline 
or  general  form,  from  which  there  was  to  be  no  departure;  and  when, 
after  several  ages,  the  office  was  examined  in  the  several  places  in  which 
they  had  been,  the  general  coincidence  is  perfect  proof  of  a  common 
origin  and  a  faithful  observance  of  the  original  institution. 

The  liturgy  of  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  is  that  which  is  generally 
known  by  the  appellation  of  the  liturgy  of  St.  James,  who  was  first 
Bishop  of  that  see.  St.  Cyril,  one  of  his  successors,  explaining  its  order 
to  the  neophytes  in  his  Catechetical  Discourses,  in  the  year  349,  says : 

''"We  then  pray  for  the  holy  Fathers,  and  Bishops,  and  lastly,  for 
all  those  who  have  quitted  this  world  in  our  communion,  believing  that 
their  souls  receive  very  great  relief  from  the  prayers  which  are  offered 
for  them  in  this  holy  and  tremendous  sacrifice  which  lies  upon  the 
altar." 

The  Liturgy  of  St.  James,  which,  from  the  earliest  period,  has  been 
used  in  the  Church  of  Jerusalem,  contains  the  following : 

The  Memento  for  the  Dead:  The  deacon  says:  "Remember,  O 
Lord,  our  God,"  and  the  priest  bowing  down  says:  "Remember,  O 
Lord,  our  God,  the  souls  of  all  those  whom  we  have  commemorated,  and 
of  such  as  we  have  not  mentioned ;  remember  those  who  have  departed, 
in  the  true  faith,  from  the  time  of  the  just  Abel  down  to  this  day: 
make  them  rest  in  the  land  of  the  living,  in  thy  kingdom,  in  the  de- 
lights of  paradise,  in  the  bosom  of  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  our  holy 
fathers ;  where  there  is  no  sorrow,  grief,  nor  lamentation,  where  the 
light  of  thy  countenance  beams  on  all  sides  and  diffuses  its  brilliancy  in 
every  manner." 


542  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

The  fathers  of  the  Council  of  Triillo,  in  Constantinople,  in  692, 
quote  this  liturgy  of  St.  James  to  refute  the  errors  of  the  Armenians: 
in  the  ninth  century,  Charles  the  Bald,  King  of  France,  desired  to  see 
the  mass  celebrated  according  to  this  liturgy  of  that  venerable  Apostle. 
The  Agios  0  Theos  was  first  sung  in  Constantinople  in  446,  and  this, 
together  with  an  addition  of  Peter  FuUo,  the  chief  of  the  Theopaschites 
in  463,  was  joined  to  this  formulary,  [and]  the  circumstance  of  those 
additions  has  caused  some  hypercritics,  who  wished  to  destroy  the  evi- 
dence of  doctrine  contained  in  the  document,  to  endeavor  to  show  that 
no  part  of  it  could  have  come  from  St.  James;  the  contrary,  however, 
is  now  too  fully  proved.  The  Patriarchs  of  Constantinople  have  gen- 
erally succeeded  in  procuring  the  substitution  of  the  liturgies  of  St. 
Basil  and  St.  Chrysostom,  even  in  many  parts  of  Syria,  for  that  of  St. 
James. 

The  liturgy  of  St.  John  Chrysostom  is  so  called  rather  from  having 
been  revised  than  compiled  by  him,  and  it  has  always  been  the  principal 
one  in  use  at  Constantinople  and  the  Churches  which  adhered  to  that 
See  in  its  schism,  as  well  as  amongst  the  Catholic  Greeks  in  Russia  and 
Italy,  [and]  in  the  Turkish  empire.  It  has  a  commemoration  of  the  liv- 
ing and  of  the  dead,  whether  the  latter  be  saints  in  heaven  or  suffering 
in  purgatory.  They  are  blended  together  for  the  purpose,  as  Casibalas 
says,  of  exhibiting  the  perfect  communion  of  all  portions  of  the  Church. 
Le  Brun,  the  erudite  and  the  indefatigable  collector  of  liturgies,  makes 
the  same  remark.  Having  so  done,  the  office  then  separates  each  por- 
tion, praying  for  the  living  and  for  the  suffering  dead,  and  celebrating 
the  memory  and  seeking  the  prayers  of  the  saints  in  heaven. 

The  commemoration  of  the  living  and  the  dead.  "We  offer,  more- 
over, this  reasonable  worship  for  those  who  are  departed  from  us  in  the 
faith,  our  forefathers,  fathers,  patriarchs,  prophets,  apostles,  preach- 
ers, evangelists,  martyrs,  confessors,  chaste  persons,  and  all  others  per- 
fected in  faith,"  with  a  loud  voice:  "especially  for  the  most  holy,  im- 
maculate, blessed  above  all,  and  most  glorious  Lady,  the  ]\Iother  of  God, 
and  ever  Virgin  Mary." 

The  choir  sing  the  praises  of  the  blessed  Virgin:  the  deacon  in- 
censes the  altar,  takes  the  dyptics  or  registers,  and  makes  a  commemora- 
tion of  the  living  and  the  dead. 

The  priest  says  in  a  low  voice:  "Saint  John  the  Baptist,  the  pro- 
phet and  precursor  of  our  Redeemer,  the  holy  and  glorious  Apostles, 
Saint  X.  whose  memory  we  celebrate  and  all  other  saints,  for  the  sake 
of  whose  prayers,  grant  us,  0  Lord,  thy  protection,  and  remember  those 
who  died  in  the  hope  of  a  resurrection  to  eternal  life. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO    WHITE  543 

The  priest  prays  for  some  living  persons,  in  particular,  and  says: 
"for  the  health,  and  protection  and  remission  of  sins  of  N.  the  servant 
of  God." 

For  the  dead  he  says:  "For  the  rest  and  deliverance  of  the  soul 
of  thy  servant  N.  that  it  may  rest  in  a  place  of  light,  where  there  is  no 
sorrow  nor  mourning,  but  where  it  may  rejoice,  0  Lord  God,  in  the 
light  of  thy  countenance." 

The  priest  turns  to  the  door,  and  blessing,  with  a  loud  voice,  says: 
"may  the  mercy  of  our  great  God  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  be  with 
you  all :  the  choir :  and  with  thy  spirit. ' ' 

The  deacon:  "Celebrating  the  memory  of  all  the  Saints,  let  us 
again  pray  to  the  Lord,  on  account  of  the  precious  gifts  now  offered,  that 
our  merciful  God,  who  hath  received  them  on  his  heavenly  and  intel- 
lectual altar,  may  send  down  upon  us  his  divine  grace,  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost;"  the  choir:  "Lord  have  mercy  on  us,"  the  priest  says  in 
a  low  voice,  "that  the  heavenly  gifts  may  draw  down  on  us  all  spiritual 
graces,  and  turn  not  to  our  condemnation. ' ' 

The  Litnrgy  of  St.  Basil  is  a  very  ancient  document,  and  in  ex- 
tensive use,  particularly  in  the  Egyptian  and  some  Eastern  Churches. 
The  father,  whose  name  it  bears,  died  in  379,  but  he  only  regulated  in 
a  more  definite  form  what  had  come  down  to  him  from  the  Apostles. 
The  anaphora  or  canon  of  offering  or  oblation  of  this,  is  preserved  by 
the  Coptic  Churches,  together  with  the  ancient  prayers  of  the  office  used 
by  St.  Mark  the  Evangelist,  who  was  the  first  Bishop  of  Alexandria; 
and  indeed  St.  Basil's  Anaphora  does  not  differ  much  in  form,  and  by 
no  means  in  doctrine,  from  the  ancient  Alexandrian  or  Coptic,  which  is 
called  that  of  St.  Mark.    I  shall  here  give  two  extracts. 

The  first  commendation  of  the  dead:  "Remember,  also,  0  Lord, 
all  those  of  the  priestly  order,  and  those  of  the  laity,  who  have  slept  and 
are  already  at  rest ;  vouchsafe,  0  Lord,  to  grant  rest  to  their  souls,  in  the 
bosom  of  holy  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob ;  lead  them  into  verdant  pas- 
tures, upon  the  waters  of  refreshment,  and  to  a  paradise  of  delights,  re- 
mote from  grief  of  heart,  sorrow  and  mourning,  to  the  glorious  light  of 
thy  Saints." 

The  deacon  says  the  Dyptics  '^  and  recites  the  names  of  the  dead. 
After  the  dyptics  the  priest  says:  "Grant,  0  Lord,  that  those,  whose 
souls  thou  hast  received,  may  rest  in  thy  heavenly  kingdom ;  but  for  us, 
who  sojourn  upon  earth,  preserve  us  in  thy  faith,  and  give  us  always 
thy  peace."    People:    "As  it  was,  and  so  forth."    Priest:    "Direct  us 

^^  Eegisters  containing  the  names  of  the  living  and  the  dead ;  the  names  were 
written  on  tables  called  dyptics,  because  they  folded  in  two. 


544  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 


to  thy  kingdom,  that  in  this  as  well  as  in  all  other  things,  thy  holy, 
glorious  and  blessed  name  may  be  hallowed,  glorified,  praised  and 
sanctified,  together  with  thy  dearly  beloved  Son,  Jesus  Christ,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost." 

In  a  subsequent  commemoration  of  the  living  and  the  dead,  is  the 
following  passage: 

"Preserve  the  living  by  the  angel  of  peace,  and  grant,  0  Lord,  that 
the  souls  of  the  departed  may  rest  in  the  bosom  of  our  holy  fathers 
Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  in  a  paradise  of  pleasure,"  and  so  forth. 

The  Liturgy  of  St.  Clement  though  probably  not  written  by  him, 
was,  if  not  received  from  him,  conformable  to  his  doctrine,  and  is  a 
very  old  document.  In  this,  after  commemorating  the  Martyrs,  prayers 
are  offered  up  for  those  who  have  died  in  the  faith. 

The  Amhrosian  Liturgy  was  probably  in  use  in  the  Church  of  Milan, 
long  before  the  time  of  St.  Ambrose  who  became  Bishop  in  the  middle 
of  the  fourth  century,  but  having  been  probably  revised  by  him  it 
bears  his  name ;  in  it  is  a  long  prayer  for  the  repose  of  the  faithful  de- 
parted. 

The  Roman  Missal  which  has  been  preserved  with  the  greatest  care, 
and  whose  canon  is  of  high  antiquity  has  the  following: 

"Be  mindful  also,  0  Lord,  of  thy  servants,  men  and  women,  N.  and 
N.  who  are  gone  before  us  with  the  sign  of  faith  and  rest  in  the  sleep  of 
peace."  He  joins  his  hands,  and  prays  a  little  while  for  those  de- 
parted, whom  he  intends  to  pray  for ;  then  stretching  out  his  hands  he 
proceeds:  "to  these,  0  Lord,  and  to  all  who  sleep  in  Christ,  grant  we 
beseech  thee,  a  place  of  refresliment,  light  and  peace."  He  joins  his 
hands  and  bows  his  head.    ' '  Through  the  same  Christ,  our  Lord.    Amen. 

The  Mosarabic  Liturgy,  is  that  which  was  used  in  Spain  during  a 
long  period:  its  name  is  an  abbreviation  of  Moorish  and  Arabic,  which 
is  explained  by  its  history. 

F.  Le  Brun  has  shown,  that  during  the  first  four  centuries  the 
Roman  order  was  followed  in  Spain ;  in  the  fifth  the  Goths  took  posses- 
sion of  that  country.  But  the  Goths,  before  they  fell  into  Arianism, 
received  from  the  East,  and  especially  from  Constantinople,  the  Chris- 
tian faith,  and  consequently  the  GreeU  Liturgy.  Martin,  Archbishop 
of  Braga ;  John,  Bishop  of  Gironna ;  S.  Leander,  Archbishop  of  Seville ; 
all  of  whom  contributed  to  the  conversion  of  the  Goths  about  the  close 
of  the  sixth  century,  were  educated  in  the  East.  They  were,  therefore, 
induced  to  preserve  the  Gothic  Liturgy,  which  came  from  that  part,  and 
which  was  conformable  to  the  Gallican,  followed  in  Narbonic  Gaul, 
where  the  Goths  ruled  as  well  as  in  Spain. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  545 

Hence  it  follows,  that  S.  Leander  and  S.  Isidore  of  Seville,  his 
brother,  in  drawing  up  the  liturgy  of  Spain,  did  not  alter  the  sub- 
stance, which  existed  before  them ;  they  merely  added  some  prayers,  col- 
lects, and  prefaces  relating  to  the  Gospels  and  to  the  different  days  of 
the  year.  But  the  sense  of  the  prayers,  the  essential  rites,  the  oblation, 
consecration,  adoration  of  the  Eucharist,  the  communion,  and  so  forth, 
are  the  same.  The  consequences  resulting  from  them  are  not  different. 
The  Gothic  Liturgy  was  retained  in  Spain  by  the  Christians,  who  main- 
tained their  independence,  after  the  invasion  of  the  Moors  or  Arabs,  un- 
til the  year  1080,  and  it  is  from  the  intermixture  of  the  Christians  with 
the  Moors,  that  the  former  were  called  Mozarabes.  The  Popes  were 
obliged  to  exert  themselves  for  more  than  thirty  years,  in  succession, 
to  get  the  Roman  Liturgy  re-established  in  Spain. 

The  following  is  an  extract  from  this  old  Spanish  office: 

"We  offer  thee,  0  Sovereign  Father,  this  immaculate  victim  for 
thy  holy  Church,  as  the  expiation  for  a  prevaricating  generation,  for 
the  purification  of  our  souls,  for  the  health  of  the  infirm,  for  the  in- 
dulgence and  repose  of  the  faithful  departed,  so  that  changing  their 
abodes  of  sorrowful  detention,  thej^  may  enjoy  the  happy  society  of  the 
jnst." 

The  Syrian  Catholics  retain  the  general  features  of  the  liturgy  of 
St.  James,  but  in  place  of  that  passage  of  it  which  we  have  before 
given,  their  office  contains  the  following: 

"We  again  make  commemoration  for  all  the  departed  who  have 
died  in  the  true  faith,  whether  they  have  been  members  of  the  Church 
of  this  country,  or  from  what  other  region  soever  they  might  have  come 
before  thee,  our  God,  who  art  the  Lord  and  master  of  all  spirits  and  of 
all  flesh.  We  pray,  implore  and  supplicate  the  Christ  our  God,  who 
hath  received  their  souls,  to  make  them  by  his  mercy  worthy  of  the 
pardon  of  their  sins,  and  to  bring  them  together  with  ourselves  to  his 
kingdom,  and  therefore  we  thrice  say  Kyrie  eleisou."  The  priest 
bows  down,  prays  for  the  dead,  and  then  elevating  his  voice.  "0  God, 
the  Lord  of  all  spirits,  and  of  all  flesh,  remember  those  whom  we  com- 
memorate, and  who  have  departed  from  this  world  in  the  true  faith: 
give  repose  to  their  souls — making  them  worthy  of  that  happiness  which 
is  tasted  in  the  bosom  of  Abraham,  of  Isaac,  and  of  Jacob,  where  the 
light  of  thy  countenance  shineth,  and  whence  are  banished  grief,  pains 
and  lamentation.  Enter  not  into  judgment  with  thy  servants,  for  no 
man  can  be  justified  in  thy  sight;  since  there  is  no  one  of  those  who 
dwelt  upon  the  earth  free  from  all  sin  and  stain,  unless  it  be  Jesus 


546  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

Christ  our  Lord,  thy  only  Son,  through  whom  we  hope  for  them  and 
for  ourselves  mercj',  and  the  remission  of  sins,  through  his  merits. ' ' 

When  in  the  year  451  Eutyches  was  condemned  in  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon,  he  made  many  adherents  in  Syria  and  Egypt ;  vast  numbers 
then  separated  themselves  from  the  Catholic  Church;  and  they  who  re- 
mained faithful  were  by  the  seceders  called  Melchites ;  from  Melchi,  the 
Hebrew  and  Syriac  expression  for  a  king  or  emperor,  because  they  ad- 
hered to  the  imperial  decree  which  commanded  submission  to  the  deter- 
mination of  the  council.  Previously  to  this  they  all  used  the  same 
liturgy  which  they  had  received  from  what  was  to  them  even  then  re- 
mote antiquity.  Since  then  the  opposition  between  them  is  as  great  as 
that  between  the  Catholics  and  any  of  the  Protestant  divisions  of  the 
west.  Yet  the  heretical  Syrians  retain  this  same  liturgy  which  is  used 
by  the  Catholics,  and  testify  that  their  fathers  had  it  down  from  the 
apostolic  days.  So  also  do  the  Egyptians  who  are  generally  Eutychians, 
retain  the  liturgy  of  St.  James,  testifying  that  it  came  from  Mark, 
James  and  Basil.  In  like  manner  the  heretical  Greeks  subject  to  the 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople  retain  that  of  St.  John  Chrysostom  and 
that  of  St.  Basil,  testifying  to  their  great  antiquity. 

Thus  we  have  full  evidence  of  the  high  antiquity  of  those  several 
public  documents;  and  no  evidence  can  better  testify  the  religious  be- 
lief of  a  people  than  their  liturgy:  I  shall  at  present  add  but  little 
more,  though  I  might  extend  my  remarks  to  considerable  length.  I  shall 
give  a  few  passages  from  the  Armenian  Liturgy: 

"Remember,  0  Lord,  and  be  merciful  and  propitious  to  the  de- 
parted souls,  and  in  particular  to  those  for  whom  w^e  offer  this  sacri- 
fice." 

Another  Prayer.  "We  ask  that  mention  might  be  made  in  this 
sacrifice  of  all  the  faithful  in  general,  men  and  women,  young  and  old, 
who  have  died  with  the  faith  in  Christ  Jesus."  The  Choir  answers: 
"Remember  then,  0  Lord,  and  have  compassion  upon  them."  The 
Priest:  "Grant  them  repose,  light,  and  a  place  amidst  thy  saints  in 
thy  heavenly  kingdom,  and  make  them  worthy  of  thy  mercy.  Remem- 
ber, 0  Lord,  and  have  compassion  on  the  soul  of  thy  servant  N.  ac- 
cording to  thy  great  mercy.  Remember  also,  O  Lord,  those  who  are 
recommended  to  our  prayers  whether  they  be  living  or  dead,  grant  to 
them  true  goods  in  return,  goods  which  shall  not  be  fleeting." 

Thus  we  see  the  firm  and  uniform  belief  of  the  persons  of  all  na- 
tions and  of  the  earliest  ages  who  used  those  liturgies  to  be,  1st.  That 
there  is  a  Purgatory;  and  2d.  That  the  souls  therein  detained,  are  helped 
by  the  prayers  and  suffrages  of  the  faithful. 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO   WHITE  547 

I  leave  to  any  person  of  ordinary  observation  to  draw  the  infer- 
ence, whence  this  doctrine  came. — We  see  Aerins  who  attempts  to  deny 
the  efficacy  of  such  prayers  immediately  ranked  amongst  the  heretics. 
We  do  not  find  him  quote  a  single  document  or  authority  of  the  preced- 
ing three  centuries  to  give  even  a  plausible  appearance  of  truth  to  the 
assertion  that  his  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostles ;  and  upon  what  shall 
we  found  this  early,  this  universal,  this  continued  and  uninterrupted 
custom?  Shall  we  not  take  up  the  maxim  of  St.  Augustin?  What  is 
taught  every  where  by  all  persons,  at  all  times,  and  not  instituted  by 
any  council,  must  have  been  derived  from  the  Apostles  and  through 
them  from  Christ.  I  shall  not  now  insist  upon  the  application  of  this 
principle.  But  I  have  destroyed  that  position  of  White's  which  Bishop 
Kemp  and  his  associates  undertook  to  defend,  "That  Tradition  brought 
Purgatory  to  light  about  the  time  of  the  cessation  of  penitential  dis- 
cipline."    I  shall  continue  the  examination  of  this  subject. 

Yours,  and  so  forth,  b.  c. 

LETTER  XLII. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Oct.  1,  1827. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends, — I  proceed  to  show  from  documents  of  others  than 
Catholics,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  earliest  ages  of  the  Church  was,  1. 
That  there  is  a  Purgatory:  2.  That  the  souls  therein  detained  may  be 
aided  by  the  prayers  and  suffrages  of  the  faithful.  Before  I  proceed 
it  will  be  proper  for  me  to  lay  down  a  few  principles  upon  the  ap- 
plication of  which  to  the  facts  which  I  shall  adduce,  the  conclusions 
will  be  properly  drawn.  First:  when  any  number  of  persons  separate 
from  the  Church,  because  of  a  difference  in  doctrine,  and  form  a  new 
society  of  their  own,  opposed  to  that  from  which  they  came  out,  neither 
division  is  disposed  to  adopt  a  new  doctrine,  or  custom,  for  the  purpose 
of  gratifying  the  other:  but  each  will  be  ready  to  proclaim  aloud  any 
innovation  made  by  its  opponent,  and  to  reproach  it  with  this  new 
deviation  from  the  ancient  doctrine  or  practice  delivered  by  Christ  and 
his  Apostles.  Hence  the  silence  of  such  parties  where  their  opposition 
continues,  and  the  opportunity  of  observation  exists,  together  wnth  the 
power  of  proclaiming  the  change,  is  strong  presumptive  evidence  that 
no  such  change  occurred:  this  will  extend  to  observances  apparently 
trifling  and  of  no  moment,  and  much  more  so  to  those  which  are  im- 
portant and  essential;  thus  the  Greek  separatists  amongst  other  things 


548  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

objected  to  the  Latin  Priests  and  Bishops  even  the  circvimstanees  that 
they  deviated  from  the  Apostolic  custom  of  wearing  their  beards. 

Second :  When  the  separatists  who  profess  to  cast  off  the  errors  of 
those  from  whom  they  departed,  preserve  any  of  the  liturgy  of  the  orig- 
inal body,  and  continue  its  use,  and  hold  it  in  high  esteem,  they  profess 
thereby  that  this  portion  of  the  liturgy  is  free  from  the  alleged  errors 
of  the  body  from  which  the  separation  was  made;  and  in  like  manner 
when  they  continue  the  observance  of  an  ancient  custom,  it  is  a  declara- 
tion that  this  custom  is  not  founded  upon  error.  Thus  when  the  Metho- 
dists retain  in  Great  Britain  a  portion  of  the  articles  and  liturgy  of  the 
Established  Church,  and  reject  another  portion,  it  is  on  their  part,  a 
testimony  that  the  portion  which  they  retain  is  in  their  opinion  free  from 
error. 

Third:  When  at  the  period  of  separation,  each  division  is  zealous 
in  the  condemnation  of  the  other,  and  both  are  agreed  that  a  common 
doctrine  or  doctrinal  custom  has  come  to  them  from  the  proper  source, 
which  is  Christ  and  his  Apostles;  they  must  be  correct  in  their  con- 
clusion, or  not  sufficiently  informed  upon  the  subject:  because  the  per- 
son who  could  show  that  the  division  to  which  he  w^as  zealously  opposed 
held  an  erroneous  doctrine  as  truth,  would  immediately  proclaim  the 
fact  for  the  injury  of  those  to  injure  whose  system  his  zeal  was  burn- 
ing. Hence  the  full  agreement  of  both  argues  either  the  truth  of  the 
doctrine,  or  the  ignorance  of  the  believers. 

Fourth:  All  the  Churches  of  the  East  and  West,  Greeks,  Latins, 
Armenians,  Copts,  Abyssinians,  and  so  forth,  could  not  have  been  so 
completely  ignorant  of  the  history  of  their  Churches,  of  the  testimony 
of  their  founders,  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostles,  and  of  the  meaning 
of  the  Gospel  as  to  have  in  their  liturgies,  on  their  most  solemn  oc- 
casions, used  prayers  for  the  dead  as  an  apostolic  usage  founded  upon 
the  doctrine  of  Christ;  if  such  usage  w^as  not  apostolic  and  founded 
upon  that  doctrine :  because  though  we  might  suppose  ignorance  or  cor- 
ruption to  have  predominated  in  one  or  two  of  those  divisions ;  yet  com- 
mon sense  will  forbid  us  to  suppose  it  could  have  been  spread  so  gen- 
erally through  them  all  as  to  involve  them  all  in  so  gross  and  so  general 
a  delusion. 

Fifth:  The  force  of  these  principles  will  appear  much  more  pow- 
erful and  efficacious,  when  we  multiply  the  obstacles  to  a  collusion  in 
error,  by  multiplying  the  divisions  of  Christians  who  having  separated 
from  the  original  Church  w^ere  not  only  opposed  to  her,  but  also  to 
each  other :  and  in  such  a  ease  the  union  of  their  testimony  in  favor  of 
the  truth  and  apostolic  origin  or  sanction  of  any  one  of  her  doctrines 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO    WHITE  549 


or  doctrinal  customs,  must  be  the  very  strongest  species  of  evidence  in 
favor  of  her  fidelity  in  preserving  unchanged  that  which  had  been  en- 
trusted to  her  care. 

Sixth:  Allow  me  to  add  to  these,  the  total  inability  of  those  per- 
sons who  charge  the  Church  with  having  introduced  the  doctrine  at  an 
intermediate  period,  to  name  the  person  by  whom,  the  period  when,  or 
the  place  in  which  the  introduction  was  made. 

I  shall  now  adduce  some  facts,  which  I  leave  to  you  as  applicable 
to  the  principles  just  enumerated.  I  shall  commence  with  the  Church 
of  England. 

When  Henry  VIII  separated  that  Church  from  the  Catholic  world, 
neither  he  nor  his  parliament  nor  his  clergy,  made  any  change  in  the  doc- 
trine or  practice  on  this  head.  In  the  first  edition  of  the  Common 
Prayer,  which  was  put  forth  under  the  reign  of  King  Edward  VI,  after- 
some  change  of  doctrine,  still  the  following  was  retained  in  the  Burial 
service : 

Then  the  Priest  casting  earth  upon  the  corpse,  shall  say,  "I  com- 
mend this  soul  to  God  the  Father  Almighty,  and  thy  body  to  the  ground, 
and  so  forth." 

But  as  this  commending  of  the  soul  was  not  suited  to  the  new  doc- 
trine which  was  gradually  introduced,  that  prayers  for  the  dead  were 
of  no  avail,  so  it  was  after  a  time  disused,  and  the  form  now  in  use  sub- 
stituted. 

Then  while  earth  shall  be  cast  upon  the  body  by  some  standing  by, 
the  Priest  shall  say:  "Forasmuch  as  it  hath  pleased  Almighty  God, 
of  his  great  mercy  to  take  unto  himself  the  soul  of  our  dear  brother  here 
departed,  we  therefore  commit  his  body  to  the  ground.  Earth  to  Earth, 
and  so  forth." 

Here  we  perceive  the  change  of  liturgy  with  the  change  of  doc- 
trine, but  in  order  to  accustom  the  people  gradually  to  the  change,  the 
whole  was  not  made  at  once,  and  therefore  in  the  first  book  of  Edward 
VI,  we  also  find  the  following  two  prayers  which  were  subsequently 
omitted,  and  were  not  in  the  amended  Common  Prayer: 

Let  us  pray:  "We  commend  into  thy  hands  of  mercy,  (most  mer- 
ciful Father)  the  soul  of  this  our  brother  departed,  N.  And  his  body 
we  commit  to  the  earth,  beseeching  thine  infinite  goodness  to  give  us 
grace  to  live  in  thy  fear  and  love,  and  to  die  in  thy  favor;  that  when 
the  judgment  shall  come  which  thou  hast  committed  to  thy  well  beloved 
Son,  both  this  our  brother,  and  we,  may  be  found  acceptable  in  thy  sight, 
and  receiving  that  blessing  which  thy  well  beloved  Son  shall  then  pro- 
nounce to  all  that  love  and  fear  thee,  saying,  Come  ye  blessed  children 


550  CONTROVEKSY  Vol. 

of  my  Father,  receive  the  kingdom  prepared  for  you  before  the  begin- 
ning of  the  -world.  Grant  this  merciful  Father,  for  the  honor  of  Jesus 
Christ  our  only  Saviour,  Mediator  and  Advocate.    A^nen.'' 

This  prayer  shall  also  be  added:  "Almighty  God,  we  give  thee 
hearty  thanks  for  this  thy  servant,  whom  thou  hast  delivered  from  the 
miseries  of  this  wretched  world,  from  the  body  of  death  and  all  tempta- 
tion :  and  as  we  trust,  hast  brought  his  soul,  which  he  committed  into  thy 
hands,  into  sure  consolation  and  rest:  grant,  we  beseech  thee,  that  at 
the  day  of  judgment  his  soul,  and  all  the  souls  of  the  elect  departed  out 
of  this  life,  may  with  us,  and  we  with  them,  fully  receive  the  promises, 
and  be  made  perfect  altogether,  through  the  glorious  resurrection  of  thy 
Son  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord." 

And  after  the  lesson  from  1  Corinthians  chapter  xv,  and  the  Lord's 
Prayer,  the  same  book  contained  the  following  which  the  Common 
Prayer  omitted: 

Priest:    "Enter  not,  0  Lord,  into  judgment  with  thy  servant." 

Answer:    "For  in  thy  sight  no  living  creature  shall  be  justified." 

Priest:    "From  the  gates  of  hell." 

Answer:     "Deliver  their  souls,  O  Lord." 

Priest :    "I  believe  to  see  the  goodness  of  the  Lord. ' ' 

Answer :    "In  the  land  of  the  living. ' ' 

Priest:     "0  Lord,  graciously  hear  my  prayer." 

Answer:     "And  let  my  cry  come  unto  thee." 

Let  us  pray :  "0  Lord,  with  whom  do  live  the  spirits  of  them  that 
be  dead,  and  in  whom  the  souls  of  them  that  be  elected,  after  they  be 
delivered  from  the  burthen  of  the  flesh,  be  in  joy  and  felicity;  grant 
unto  this  servant,  that  the  sins  which  he  committed  in  this  world  be  not 
imputed  unto  him,  but  that  he  escaping  the  gates  of  hell,  and  pains  of 
eternal  darkness,  may  ever  dwell  in  the  region  of  light  with  Abraham, 
Isaac  and  Jacob,  in  the  place  where  is  no  weeping,  sorrow  nor  heaviness, 
and  when  that  dreadful  day  of  the  general  resurrection  shall  come, 
make  him  to  rise  also  with  the  just  and  righteous,  and  receive  this  body 
again  to  glory,  then  made  pure  and  incorruptible ;  set  him  on  the  right 
hand  of  thy  Son  Jesus  Chi-ist,  among  thy  holy  and  elect,  that  then  he 
may  hear  with  them  these  most  sweet  and  comfortable  words.  Come  ye 
blessed  of  my  Father,  possess  the  kingdom  which  had  been  prepared  for 
you  from  the  beginning  of  the  world.  Grant  this,  we  beseech  thee,  0 
merciful  Father,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Mediator  and  Redeemer. 
Amen.^' 

The  same  first  book  of  Edward  VI  contained  also  a  celebration  of 
the  holy  eucharist,  or  holy  communion,  when  there  is  a  burial  of  the 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  551 


dead ;  that  the  people  might  be  gradually  weaned  from  the  Mass  for  the 
repose  of  the  soul  of  the  deceased.  But  though  under  Elizabeth  the 
liturgy  was  changed,  yet  the  clergy  during  her  reign  still  took  the  Obla- 
tions and  Doles  or  alms  on  behalf  of  the  deceased,  and  L 'Estrange  tells 
us,  that  they  used  to  receive  the  money  in  the  reign  of  Charles  I.  I 
cannot  say  whether  they  do  at  present,  but  mortuary  money  is  still  by 
law  a  due  to  the  Protestant  Clergy  of  England. 

In  the  second  year  of  Elizabeth,  the  anniversary  services  for  the 
repose  of  the  souls  of  the  benefactors  of  Eton  and  Winchester  Colleges 
were  converted  into  services  of  thanksgiving  to  God  for  their  endow- 
ment. 

The  only  additional  change  I  believe,  made  by  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  of  America  in  the  case,  is  the  substitution  of  one  Psalm 
for  two. 

Thus  we  perceive  that  a  change  of  liturgy  and  a  change  of  doc- 
trine, as  I  have  above  expressed,  go  hand  in  hand.  Thus  when  Henry 
VIII  denied  the  Pope's  supremacy,  Bishop  Burnet  informs  us  regard- 
ing the  Mass-Booh,  that  the  alterations  were  so  small  that  there  was  no 
need  of  reprinting  it ;  a  few  erasures  of  those  collects  in  which  the  Pope 
was  prayed  for,  the  office  of  St.  Thomas  of  Canterbury,  (Becket)  and 
of  a  few  other  saints  with  whom  Henry  was  displeased,  sufficed. 

I  now  proceed  to  unchanged  liturgies,  and  consequently  to  unal- 
tered doctrines. 

The  Greeks  who  are  separated  from  the  universal  communion  have 
made  their  decisive  separation  at  the  time  of  Photius,  in  867,  although 
several  attempts  at  reconciliation  with  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
have  been  occasionally  made  since  that  time.  They  generally  acknowl- 
edge the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  to  be  the  head  of  their  Church; 
though  the  Dukes  and  Czars  of  Muscovy,  and  Emperors  of  Russia,  have 
succeeded  latterly,  in  making  the  Russian  portion  of  that  body  a  separate 
Church,  dependent  upon  themselves,  still  they  use  the  same  liturgy  and 
follow  generally  the  same  practices,  as  their  belief  is  the  same. 

The  two  principal  liturgies  used  by  the  Greeks,  who  are  subject  to 
the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  are  those  of  St.  Basil  and  St.  John 
Chrysostom.  There  can  be  no  doubt  but  St.  Basil  was  the  real  author 
or  the  digester  of  the  former;  as  to  the  second,  it  was  ascribed  to  St. 
Chrysostom,  only  three  hundred  years  after  his  death.  It  appears,  that 
it  is  the  ancient  liturgy  of  the  Church  of  Constantinople,  which  was 
called  the  Liturgy  of  the  Apostles  till  the  sixth  century.  The  latter  is 
used  throughout  the  year,  and  contains  the  whole  order  of  the  Mass; 
the  other,  the  prayers  of  which  are  longer,  is  used  only  on  some  par- 


552  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

ticular  days.  There  is  a  third,  which  is  called  the  Mass  of  the  Presancti- 
fied,  because  there  is  no  consecration,  as  with  us,  on  Good  Friday;  the 
priest  does  not  consecrate,  but  communicates  Avith  the  sacrament  conse- 
crated on  Holy  Thursday.  The  prayers  of  that  Mass  appear  less  an- 
cient than  those  of  the  foregoing. 

F.  Le  Brun  has  given  the  prayers  and  the  order  of  the  ceremonies 
of  St.  John  Chrysostoni's  Liturgy.  It  is  used  in  all  the  Greek  Churches 
of  the  Ottoman  Empire,  which  are  subject  to  the  Patriarch  of  Constan- 
tinople, and  in  those  of  Poland  and  Russia.  As  to  the  Greeks,  who 
have  Churches  in  Italy,  they  have  made  some  alterations  in  that  liturgy. 
The  Patriarchs  of  Constantinople  have  even  succeeded  in  getting  it 
adopted  in  the  patriarchates  of  Antioch,  Jerusalem  and  Alexandria,  by 
the  Christian  Melchites,  who  in  the  fifth  century,  rejected  the  Euty- 
chain  heresy.  Although  in  all  those  countries  the  Greek  language  is  not 
understood,  yet  the  Greek  Liturgy  is  universally  followed;  but  on  ac- 
doing  it  explicitly.  The  Greeks  have  no  distinct  idea  of  what  state  of 
obliged  to  celebrate  Mass  in  the  Arabic  language. 

I  have  in  my  last  letter  shown  that  prayer  for  the  dead  is  found  in 
both  those  offices.  I  am  aware  that  attempts  have  been  made  to  per- 
suade persons  that  the  Greeks  did  not  believe  in  the  existence  of  Purga- 
tory; and  although  I  have  before  explained  the  difference  between 
them  and  the  Latins  on  this  subject,  I  shall  take  this  occasion  of  again 
doing  it  explicitly.  The  Greeks  have  no  distinct  idea  of  what  state  of 
suffering  the  soul  undergoes,  and  some  amongst  them  believe,  that  no 
soul  goes  to  heaven  before  the  period  of  the  general  resurrection:  but 
they  do  believe  that  such  souls  as  owe  any  thing  to  divine  justice  must 
have  it  expiated  by  suffering  before  the  day  of  judgment,  and  they  be- 
lieve that  prayers  and  suffrages  will  tend  to  this  expiation,  and  there- 
fore they  do  offer  them  for  the  relief  of  the  deceased.  In  this  they  fully 
accord  with  the  decision  of  the  Council  of  Trent.  "1.  That  there  is  a 
Purgatory."  "2.  That  the  souls  therein  detained  are  helped  by  the 
suffrages  of  the  faithful. ' '  This  is  all  which  we  are  required  to  believe 
for  faith :  and  this  they  firmly  believe,  and  therefore  preserve  unchanged 
that  service  which  they  assert,  as  we  agree,  has  come  down  to  thorn  from 
the  Apostles.  But  some  of  the  Latins  are  of  the  opinion  that  Purgatory 
is  a  special  and  definite  place,  and  that  the  purgation  is  by  fire.  The 
Greeks  say  that  this  opinion  is  not  well  founded,  and  in  saying  this  there 
is  a  difference  of  opinion,  but  no  difference  of  faith  between  the  Greek 
and  Latin.  Thus  whilst  the  Greeks  reproached  the  Latins  with  shaving 
their  beards,  refusing  to  ordain  married  men,  consecrating  in  unleav- 
ened bread,  fasting  on  Saturdays,  eating  milkmeats  in  the  first  week 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  553 

of  Lent,  adding  the  particle  Filioque  to  the  creed,  and  so  forth,  they 
never  charged  them  with  error  in  praying  for  the  dead,  but  they  con- 
tinue the  prayer  and  the  masses  for  the  benefit  of  the  deceased  of  their 
communion,  and  assert  that  in  so  doing,  they  only  follow  the  maxims  of 
the  Gospel,  and  the  injunctions  of  the  Apostles. 

The  Eutychians  were  separated  from  the  Church  at  the  Council 
of  Chalcedon,  in  the  year  451,  and  a  vast  portion  of  Syria  and  Egypt 
embraced  the  errors  of  Eutyches.  The  ancient  Egyptians  had  the 
liturgy  in  their  own  language,  chiefly  compiled  from  the  offices  of  St. 
Mark,  St.  James  and  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria;  this  language  is  now 
known  as  the  Coptic.  The  Syrians  had  that  of  St.  James.  The  Euty- 
chians in  Syria  and  Egypt  still  use  those  same  liturgies,  unchanged  in 
all  that  regards  prayer  for  the  dead ;  which  they  and  the  Catholics  agree 
was  found  in  the  books,  and  used  by  their  predecessors  before  the  Coun- 
cil of  Chalcedon,  and  which  their  fathers  received  as  having  come  from 
the  Apostles.  Thus,  although  separated  from  the  Church  nearly  four- 
teen centuries,  they  testify  its  belief  upon  this  point  as  the  day  of  their 
unfortunate  secession. 

The  Armenians  were  drawn  into  the  Eutychian  heresy  in  the  year 
525,  by  James  Baradoeus,  or  Zanzales,  [but]  a  great  portion  of  them 
have  returned  to  the  Catholic  communion :  their  liturgy  was  given  to 
them  by  St.  Gregory  the  Illuminator,  in  the  4th  century,  and  both  Cath- 
olics and  Jacobites  retain  in  it  the  prayers  for  the  dead. 

The  Malabar  Christians,  or  as  they  are  sometimes  called,  "of  St. 
Thomas,"  were  discovered  by  the  Portuguese  in  the  beginning  of  the 
sixteenth  centui-y,  and  are  a  branch  of  the  Nestorians.  The  following 
are  extracts  from  their  liturgy,  which  must  correspond  with  that  of  the 
Chaldean  Nestorians,  subject  to  the  Patriarch  of  Babylon,  whom  the 
Christians  of  St.  Thomas  looked  upon  as  their  head. 

Prayers  for  the  Dead:  "Let  us  remember  the  faithful,  our  fathers 
and  brethren,  who  departed  from  this  world  in  the  orthodox  faith;  let 
us,  I  say,  beseech  the  Lord  to  absolve  and  forgive  them  their  sins  and 
transgressions,  and  make  them  worthy  to  rejoice,  for  ever,  with  the  just 
and  upright,  who  obeyed  the  will  of  God." 

The  Blessing  of  Masses  for  the  dead:  "Hear,  0  my  Lord,  the 
voice  of  my  prayer,  let  our  supplications  come  in  before  thee  and  receive 
our  sacrifice  and  oblations,  and  be  merciful  to  the  sins  of  our  brethren 
departed. ' ' 

Nestorius  was  condemned  in  the  Council  of  Ephesus  in  431,  and  a 
large  portion  of  the  East,  particularly  Mesopotamia,  and  Persia  em- 
braced his  errors. 


554  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

The  Syi'ian  Liturgy  of  St.  James,  is  that  which  is  in  general  use 
amongst  them,  and  they  have  always  retained  the  prayers  for  the  dead, 
and  continue  to  use  them.  : 

Let  us  then  look  to  this  body  of  Christians  separated  during  four- 
teen centuries  from  the  Catholic  Church,  hating  the  Eutychians  and 
hated  by  them,  separated  from  the  Greek  Church,  which  they  anathema- 
tize, and  from  the  Latin  Church,  whose  language  they  do  not  under- 
stand, from  whose  ceremonial  they  differ,  and  which  they  still  proclaim 
as  their  unjust  condemner:  what  but  the  strong  evidence  of  well  estab- 
lished truth  can  teach  them  an  union  of  testimony.  They  produce  their 
ancient  records ;  they  show  a  custom  in  which  they  were  united  before 
their  differences  originated ;  when  their  fathers  held  the  doctrine  deliv- 
ered to  them  by  the  Apostles.  Latin,  Greek,  Egyptian,  Armenian,  Sy- 
rian, Chaldean,  Persian,  Muscovite  and  Indian,  Nestorian,  Eutychian, 
Greek  Catholic,  schismatic  and  heretic,  proclaim  that  the  original  litur- 
gies which  have  been  received  from  the  Apostles,  contain  those  prayers 
and  suffrages  which  they  desired  should  be  offered  for  the  benefit  of 
the  suffering  dead :  and  with  such  a  host  of  evidence  as  this  before  him, 
the  Rev.  Joseph  Blanco  "White  tells  us  that  ''Purgatory  was  brought  to 
light  by  Tradition  upon  the  cessation  of  canonical  penance,"  and  Bishop 
Kemp  of  Maryland,  with  a  collection  of  every  description  of  clergymen 
in  his  rear,  proclaims  to  the  Protestants  of  the  United  States,  that  they 
may  rely  upon  the  testimony  of  Blanco  White !  !  ! 

My  friends,  I  have  dwelt  long  upon  this  topic,  but  I  must  pursue 
it  still  farther,  because  I  desire  at  least,  upon  one  subject  of  doctrine, 
to  afford  our  Right  Reverend  and  reverend  opponents  a  fair  opportunity 
of  defending  White,  if  they  can,  and  I  have  intentionally  selected  as  a 
point  for  their  assault,  that  which  they  generally  proclaim  to  be  the 
most  foolish  and  absurd  in  our  system,  as  they  are  pleased  to  call  it. 
I  shall  therefore  have  to  keep  them  to  Purgatory  for  some  time  yet. 
Yours,  and  so  forth,  b.  c. 

LETTER  XLIIL 

Charleston,  S.  C,  Oct.  8,  1827. 
To  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

My  Friends, — It  is  conceded  by  the  most  learned  of  our  opponents, 
that  the  custom  of  praying  for  the  dead  is  certainly  as  old  as  the  second 
century  of  the  Church,  and  the  belief  in  the  existence  of  purgatory  is 
acknowledged  by  all  persons  to  have  been  pretty  general  in  the  fourth 
century.  I  shall  now  proceed  to  show  that  our  doctrine  is  that  of  the 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO   WHITE  555 

New  Testament.  An  ancient  Christian  writer  stated,  that  to  quote 
texts  of  Scripture  for  the  purpose  of  proving  any  doctrine  against 
heretics  was,  to  say  the  least,  useless,  if  not  mischievous :  for,  added  he, 
if  they  cannot  by  some  ingenuity  make  the  text  by  which  they  are 
condemned  lose  its  force,  they  will  deny  its  right  to  a  place  in  the  book, 
and,  if  necessary,  will  even  deny  the  book  which  contains  it  to  be  can- 
onical. When  I  state,  then,  that  I  will  prove  the  doctrine  of  purgatory 
to  be  contained  in  the  New  Testament,  I  am  very  far  from  asserting 
that  our  adversaries  will  admit  my  proofs  to  be  good:  it  would  be  un- 
reasonable to  expect  this  from  persons  who  seriously  assure  us  that  the 
words  "this  is  my  body,"  mean  "this  is  not  my  body,"  and  that  "the 
gates  of  hell  shall  never  prevail  against  it,"  mean,  "the  gates  of  hell 
shall  prevail  against  it,"  or  who  calmly  assert  that  "whosesoever  sins 
you  shall  remit  are  remitted  to  them, ' '  mean  ' '  whosesoever  sins  you  shall 
remit,  are  not  remitted  to  them."  Thus  I  do  not  intend  to  create  in  you 
the  hope  that  such  persons  will  acknowledge  the  doctrine  of  purgatory 
to  be  contained  in  the  New  Testament:  yet  I  assert  that  it  is  found  in 
this  divine  book. 

But  why,  it  will  be  asked,  will  not  their  opinion,  as  to  the  meaning 
of  a  text,  be  of  equal  authority  with  mine  ?  I  admit  the  opinion  of  any 
one  of  them  to  be  entitled  to  as  much  weight  as  is  mine :  but  the  ques- 
tion is  not  to  be  decided  by  either  their  opinion  or  by  mine.  The 
words  of  the  sacred  text  have  a  precise  and  a  determined  meaning,  in- 
tended by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  neither  they  nor  I  can  make  that  mean- 
ing different  from  what  it  really  is :  and  it  is  now  the  same  that  it  was 
from  the  beginning,  for  the  sense  of  the  Holy  Ghost  continues  unaltered 
and  unalterable.  This  true  meaning  is  the  true  doctrine  or  word  of  God, 
and  it  is  what  he  designed  to  teach  to  man,  and  is  frequently  very  dif- 
ferent from  that  similitude  of  meaning  which  opponents  can  force  upon 
words.  St.  Irenffius,  Bishop  of  Lyons,  informs  us  how  this  true  mean- 
ing is  to  be  ascertained.  This  great  man  was  born  about  the  year  120, 
and  was  educated  in  the  Christian  doctrine  by  St.  Polycarp,  Bishop  of 
Smyrna,  a  disciple  of  St.  John  the  Evangelist,  and  was  the  senior  of 
Iren^eus  by  about  40  years.  Irenaeus  also  learned  from  Papias  and 
other  companions  of  the  Apostles,  and  was  himself  styled  by  Tertullian 
"the  most  diligent  searcher  of  all  doctrines."  In  his  Works,  Book  iv, 
chapter  63,  we  read : 

"This  recognition  is  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  an- 
cient state  of  the  Church  in  the  whole  world,  and  the  character  of  the 
body  of  Christ,  according  to  the  succession  of  the  Bishops,  to  whom  they 
delivered  that  Church  which  is  in  every  place;  which  has  come  down 


556  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

unto  us,  preserved  without  fiction,  by  the  most  full  examination  of  the 
Scriptures,  neither  receiving  addition  nor  diminution,  and  a  reading 
without  corruption,  and  a  lawful  and  diligent  exposition  according  to 
the  Scriptures,  both  without  danger  and  without  blasphemy,  and  the 
chief  gift  of  charity,  which  is  more  precious  than  the  recognition,  more 
glorious  than  prophecy,  super-eminent  above  all  gifts." 

The  true  knowledge  of  the  meaning  of  the  sacred  text  is,  according 
to  this,  to  be  found  by  the  full  explanation  of  the  writing  according  to 
that  ancient  doctrine  of  the  Apostles,  recognised  by  the  testimony  of 
the  general  body  of  the  successors  of  the  Apostles  in  every  place.  One 
or  two,  a  few  might  err;  or  they  might  give  arbitrary  and  novel  ex- 
planations, but  the  true  meaning  is  recognised  by  the  testimony  of  the 
whole  body  to  whose  care  the  text  and  its  meaning  were  entrusted  by 
the  Apostles. 

Theodoret,  in  his  Dialogue  1,  gives  us  the  same  principle : 

"Those  men  were  the  successors  of  the  Apostles,  and  some  amongst 
them  were  accustomed  to  the  enjoyment  of  their  sacred  and  admirable 
presence,  many  of  them  have  been  adorned  with  the  crowns  of  martyr- 
dom. Does  it  then  appear  lawful  for  you  to  brandish  your  blasphemous 
and  evil  tongue  against  them." 

I  shall  then,  in  explaining  the  passages  of  Scripture  which  I  shall 
adduce,  not  give  my  own  opinion,  but  the  testimony  of  such  men  as 
those,  to  show  the  meaning ;  and  hence  it  will  not  be  the  opinion  of  B.  C. 
opposed  to  the  opinion  of  any  modern  separatist,  as  to  the  true  mean- 
ing of  the  text,  but  it  will  be  the  testimony  of  those  ancient  and  vener- 
able witnesses,  from  and  through  whom  we  have  received  the  Scriptures 
themselves,  as  to  the  meaning  of  that  sacred  book  of  whose  integrity  and 
contents  they  are  made  the  witnesses  to  us :  and  thus  we  do  not  interpret 
this  venerable  document  by  our  own  private  judgment,  but  by  the  unani- 
mous consent  of  the  Fathers,  and  we  do  not  give  our  own  private  opin- 
ions, but  the  ancient,  public  testimony  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ  and  his 
Apostles. 

The  first  text  is  found  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  chapter  xii, 
31,32: 

"Therefore  I  say  to  you:  Every  sin  and  blasphemy  shall  be  for- 
given men ;  but  the  blasphemy  of  the  Spirit  shall  not  be  forgiven.  And 
whosoever  shall  speak  a  word  against  the  Son  of  Man,  it  shall  be  for- 
given him :  but  he  that  shall  speak  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  shall  not 
be  forgiven  him,  neither  in  this  world  nor  in  the  world  to  come." 

The  early  doctors  and  pastors  of  the  Church,  explaining  this  ex- 
pression of  our  Saviour,  repeatedly  declare  that  its  distinct  meaning  is, 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO   WHITE  557 


that  the  sin  which  he  so  emphatically  condemns,  is  one  whose  guilt  and 
punishment  will  remain  to  eternity,  and  not  be  forgiven,  either  during 
man's  mortal  term,  or  after  his  death,  in  that  new  state  of  existence 
upon  which  he  will  enter,  and  in  which  many  other  sins  of  less  heinous 
character  are  forgiven  by  the  mercy  of  God,  and  by  means  of  the  prayers 
and  suffrages  of  the  Church  and  of  her  children.  Amongst  them  are  St. 
Augustine  in  his  xxist  book  Of  the  City  of  God,  chapter  24,  and  in  his 
book  vi  against  Julian,  chapter  5;  St.  Gregory  in  his  book  iv  of  Dia- 
logues, chapter  39 ;  Venerable  Bede  on  chapter  iii  of  Mark.  And  when 
in  the  twelfth  century  the  Petrobrusians  denied  the  doctrine  of  purga- 
tory and  the  use  of  praying  for  the  dead,  St.  Bernard,  in  his  Homily 
Ixvi,  on  the  Canticles,  quoted  this  text  as  having  been  always  an  evi- 
dence of  the  doctrine,  as  did  also  Peter,  the  venerable  abbot  of  Cluny, 
in  his  Epistle  against  them. 

Another  testimony  of  the  New  Testament  is  found  in  Matthew,  chap- 
ter V,  25,  26,  and  Luke,  chapter  xii,  58,  59. 

"And  when  thou  goest  with  thy  adversary  to  the  prince,  whilst 
thou  art  in  the  way  endeavor  to  be  delivered  from  him :  lest  perhaps  he 
draw  thee  to  the  .judge,  and  the  judge  deliver  thee  to  the  exactor,  and 
the  exactor  cast  thee  into  prison.  I  say  to  thee,  thou  shalt  not  go  out 
thence  until  thou  pray  the  very  last  mite." 

In  the  first  of  those  places  it  is  related  that  our  Saviour  used  the 
expression  in  reference  to  the  persons  whom  he  charged  to  be  reconciled 
with  their  enemies  before  they  laid  their  gifts  on  the  altar :  in  the  second, 
he  gives  it  as  a  sequel,  to  the  admonition  concerning  the  judgment  which 
he  must  undergo  before  the  tribunal  of  God.  Several  of  the  earliest 
fathers  testify  to  us  that  it  was  understood  regarding  purgatory,  from 
which  the  soul  accused  by  the  law  of  God,  of  venial  sins  or  of  incom- 
plete satisfaction,  would  not  come  out  before  the  divine  justice  had  been 
satisfied.  Amongst  those  are  Tertullian,  in  his  book  Of  the  Soul,  chap- 
ter xvii ;  St.  Cyprian,  Book  iv,  Ep.  2 ;  Origen,  Homily  35,  On  Luke ;  Euse- 
bius,  of  Emessa,  Homily  3,  On  Epiphany ;  St.  Ambrose  in  his  Comment 
on  this  paragraph  in  Luke  xii ;  St.  Jerom  in  chapter  v,  on  Matthew. 

In  the  fifth  chapter  of  Matthew  we  also  read  the  following  passage : 

"21.  You  have  heard  that  it  was  said  to  them  of  old:  Thou  shalt 
not  kill,  and  whosoever  shall  kill,  shall  be  in  danger  of  the  judgment. 
22.  But  I  say  to  you,  that  whosoever  is  angry  with  his  brother,  shall 
be  in  danger  of  the  judgment.  And  whosoever  shall  say  to  his  brother, 
Raca,  shall  be  in  danger  of  the  council.  And  whosoever  shall  say,  thou 
fool,  shall  be  in  danger  of  hell  fire." 

Amongst  other  commentators,  St.  Augustine,  Book  i,    chapter    19, 


558  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

"On  the  Sermon  on  the  Mountain,"  explains  this  passage  as  denoting 
three  grades  of  punishment  for  sin  after  death,  of  which  only  the  last 
was  eternal,  the  other  two  temporary,  or  purgatory. 

In  the  sixteenth  chapter  of  the  Gospel  according  to  St.  Luke,  v.  9, 
we  read : 

"And  I  say  unto  you:  Make  unto  you  friends  of  the  mammon  of 
iniquity ;  that  when  you  shall  fail,  they  may  receive  you  into  everlasting 
dwellings." 

The  ancient  writers,  in  this  passage,  understood  that  by  the  ex- 
pression of  the  Saviour,  "when  you  shall  fail,"  he  meant,  "when  you 
shall  die,"  and  by  the  words  "friends"  he  meant  the  "saints,"  who 
themselves  dwelt  in  the  sacred  abodes.  Hence  St.  Ambrose,  in  his  com- 
ment upon  this  passage,  and  St.  Augustine,  in  his  book  xxi.  Of  the  City 
of  God,  chapter  27,  states  the  doctrine  herein  taught  to  be,  that  alms 
given  to  those  who  are  holy,  will  be  extremely  profitable  to  the  donor, 
as  they  being  saints  in  heaven,  will,  after  his  death,  aid  him  by  their 
prayers:  and  from  this  very  passage,  St.  Augustine  takes  occasion  to 
state,  that  of  those  who  die,  some  are  very  holy,  and  are  immediately 
after  death  received  into  heaven,  and  can  there  by  their  prayers  aid 
others;  whilst  some  are  so  wicked,  that  after  their  death,  they  neither 
can  aid  or  be  aided;  but  are  eternally  lost:  and  finally  that  some  are 
in  that  middle  state,  who,  at  the  time  of  death,  are  not  found  deserving 
eternal  punishment,  nor  sufficiently  prepared  for  immediate  admittance 
into  heaven;  and  they  are  received  into  everlasting  dwellings  through 
the  prayers  of  their  friends. 

In  the  second  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  verse  24,  St.  Peter 
says  of  our  blessed  Saviour : 

"Whom  God  hath  raised  up,  having  loosed  the  sorrows  of  hell,  as 
it  was  impossible  that  he  should  be  holden  by  it." 

I  would  not  have  quoted  this  passage  were  it  not  for  the  purpose  of 
making  a  remark  upon  the  difi^erence  of  reading,  and  of  the  versions. 
I  have  quoted  according  to  the  Vulgate.  The  Greek  copies  have  given 
occasion  to  a  very  curious  exhibiton  of  this  verse,  "having  loosed  from 
the  sorrows  of  death."  It  is  clear  the  Saviour  was  not  loosed  there- 
from, because  he  died  upon  the  cross :  and  in  the  state  subsequent  to  the 
pangs  of  death  we  know  of  no  sorrow  save  that  of  hell,  whether  this 
expression  means  the  place  of  eternal  torments,  or  only  a  place  of  tem- 
porary pain.  The  body  which  lies  in  the  grave  feels  no  pain,  has  no 
sorrow.  The  ancient  fathers,  particularly  Epiphanius  and  Augustine, 
who  gave  it,  "loosed  from  the  sorrows  of  hell,"  state  that  the  pains  of 
purgatory  are  meant,  and  not  only  that  Christ  was  himself  free  from 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.   BLANCO   WHITE  559 


their  pain,  as  it  was  imposible  he  should  be  detained  by  it,  but  that  on 
this  occasion  having  gone  as  St.  Peter  stated  in  his  Epistle,  to  preach  to 
the  spirits  in  prison,  he  released  several  who  were  enduring  those  pains. 
The  Syriac  copy  corresponds  with  the  Vulgate,  and  St.  Polycarp  and 
other  very  ancient  authors  use  the  same  expressions,  with  us :  the  Greek 
is  of  very  little,  if  any  authority  as  an  original,  for  it  has  not  been 
preserved  with  sufficient  care,  or  by  sufficient  witnesses :  but  this  is  not 
the  place  to  enter  upon  such  a  question. 

In  the  First  Epistle  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Corinthians,  chapter  iii,  we 
read  the  following  passage  commencing  at  the  close  of  verse  9,  and  end- 
ing at  the  close  of  verse  15. 

"You  are  God's  building.  According  to  the  grace  of  God,  that  is 
given  to  me,  as  a  wise  architect,  I  have  laid  the  foundation :  and  another 
buildeth  thereon.  But  let  every  man  take  heed  how  he  buildeth  there- 
upon. For  other  foundation  no  man  can  lay  but  that  which  is  laid: 
which  is  Christ  Jesus.  Now,  if  any  man  build  upon  this  foundation, 
gold,  silver,  precious  stones,  wood,  hay,  stubble:  every  man's  work 
shall  be  manifest,  for  the  day  of  the  Lord  shall  declare  it,  because  it 
shall  be  revealed  in  fire :  and  the  fire  shall  try  every  man's  work,  of  what 
sort  it  is.  If  any  man's  work  abide  which  he  hath  built  thereupon, 
he  shall  receive  a  reward.  If  any  man's  work  burn,  he  shall  suffer  loss : 
but  he  himself  shall  be  saved,  yet  so  as  by  fire." 

The  context,  as  well  as  the  great  body  of  ancient  commentators, 
shows  us  the  general  sense  of  the  passage  to  refer  to  the  preachers  and 
teachers  of  Corinth,  where  St.  Paul  laid  the  doctrine  of  Christ  as  the 
foundation  for  their  labors:  some  of  them,  in  pure  sincerity  of  heart, 
raised  a  valuable  superstructure  by  their  exertions  upon  this  foundation, 
and  in  the  day  of  their  appearing  for  judgment  before  the  Lord,  not 
only  would  their  labors  stand  the  scrutinizing  fire  of  his  judgment; 
but  they  should  be  rewarded.  Some  others,  who  continued  indeed,  faith- 
ful to  the  doctrine  of  truth,  not  leaving  the  foundation,  raised  upon 
it  a  superstructure  in  which  there  was  much  of  vanity,  the  pride  of 
human  learning,  vain  philosophy,  and  other  imperfections  of  our  weak 
nature  which  could  not  endure  the  searching  fire  of  God's  judgment. 
They  should,  therefore,  suffer  loss  of  their  labor,  and  would,  as  persons 
in  a  house  which  the  fire  was  consuming,  endeavor  to  escape;  in  this 
they  should  succeed,  because  they  had  not  grievous  offences  to  condemn 
them ;  they  would  be  saved,  but  like  persons  escaping  from  a  fire,  having 
suffered  loss  and  endured  pain  and  affliction,  which  their  more  virtuous 
fellow  ministers  had  escaped.  That  this  endurance  of  theirs  would  be 
in  the  other  world,  after  the  judgment  which  succeeded  their  death,  in 


560  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

the  day  of  the  Lord,  when  their  works  would  be  tried,  that  it  would 
also  be  temporary,  and  succeeded  by  salvation,  which  is  our  doctrine  of 
purgatory,  is  then  the  meaning  of  the  Holy  Clhost  in  this  passage  of  St. 
Paul:  such  was  the  belief  of  the  Church  in  her  earliest  days,  as  is  tes- 
tified by  St.  Cyprian  in  an  allusion  which  he  makes  to  the  text  in  Book 
iv,  Epistle  2  to  Antonianus;  by  St.  Ambrose  in  his  commentary  upou 
this  text,  and  in  his  Sermon  20,  on  Psalm  cxviii ;  St.  Jerom  on  Chapter 
iv,  of  the  prophet  Amos;  St.  Augustine  in  his  Explication  of  Psalm 
xxxvii,  and  in  a  remark  upon  the  text  itself,  and  several  others. 

In  the  same  epistle,  chapter  xv,  29,  we  read: 

"Otherwise,  what  shall  they  do  that  are  baptized  for  the  dead,  if 
the  dead  rise  not  again  at  all?     Why  are  they  then  baptized  for  them?" 

Respecting  this  text,  there  is  considerable  difference  concerning  what 
is  meant  by  the  Apostle  in  these  words  ' '  baptized  for  the  dead. ' '  There 
was,  about  a  century  after  his  death,  a  custom  of  some  Montanists,  Mar- 
cionites,  and  Cerinthians,  which  was  occasioned  by  the  common  usage  of 
the  Church,  which  they  witnessed  but  turned  to  bad  account.  The  ortho- 
dox friends  of  the  deceased,  prayed  and  made  suffrages  and  alms  on  his 
account;  frequently  they  placed  those  alms  upon  the  grave,  that  the 
poor  who  there  found  relief  might  pray  for  the  repose  of  his  soul.  The 
heretics  above  mentioned,  not  only  did  all  this,  but  if  the  deceased  died 
without  baptism,  they  procured  another  to  be  baptized  for  him,  and  in 
his  name,  that  he  might  obtain  the  benefit  of  the  sacrament.  But  this 
error  did  not  exist  in  the  time  of  St.  Paul,  and  therefore  the  allusion  is 
not  made  thereto:  besides,  the  Apostle  writes  in  approbation  of  what 
he  alludes  to,  and  he  would  not  approve  of  this  error.  The  great  body 
of  commentators  leads  us  to  behold  in  the  baptism  w^hich  is  here  men- 
tioned, one  of  those  which  St.  Paul  alludes  to  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  his 
Epistle  to  the  Hehrews,  where  he  says : 

"Wherefore  leaving  the  word  of  the  beginning  of  Chi-ist,  let  us  go 
on  to  things  more  perfect,  not  laying  again  the  foundation  of  penance 
from  dead  works,  and  of  faith  towards  God,  of  the  doctrine  of  baptisms, 
and  imposition  of  hands,  and  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  of 
eternal  j  udgment. ' ' 

In  this  place  he  speaks  of  baptisms  in  the  plural  number,  whereas 
in  his  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  chapter  iv,  5,  he  tells  us  "One  Lord,  one 
faith,  one  baptism."  In  this  latter  place  he  speaks  of  the  sacrament 
which  began  then  to  be  called  baptism  by  excellence,  and  to  which  alone 
the  name  was  soon  applied,  in  such  manner  as  that  it  is  seldom  given 
to  any  thing  else.  There  were,  however,  several  baptisms  or  purifica- 
tions amongst  the  Jews;  and  there  was  the  baptism  of  John  the  pre- 


two  CALUMNIES    OF   J.    BLANCO    WHITE  561 


cursor  of  Christ,  which  was  generally  known  as  the  baptism  of  penance, 
as  being  accompanied  with  those  penitential  exercises  that  were  joined 
to  repentance  for  sins  in  the  Jewish  nation :  it  is  so  called  by  St.  Paul 
at  Antioch,  {Acts  xiii,  24,)  and  at  Ephesus  (xix,  4.)  Our  blessed 
Saviour  speaks  of  another  sort  of  baptism,  one  of  suffering,  in  Mark  x, 
38,  39: 

' '  Can  you  drink  of  the  chalice  that  I  drink  of,  or  be  baptized  with 
the  baptism  wherewith  I  am  baptized  ?  But  they  said  to  him :  we  can. 
And  Jesus  saith  to  them:  you  shall  indeed  drink  of  the  chalice  that 
I  drink  of:  and  with  the  baptism  wherewith  I  am  baptized,  you  shall 
be  baptized. " 

And  in  Luke  xii,  50: 

"And  I  have  a  baptism  wherewith  I  am  to  be  baptized:  and  how 
am  I  straitened  until  it  be  accomplished?" 

Thus  we  find  three  descriptions  of  baptism:  that  of  washing; 
that  of  penance,  to  which  the  name  was  applicable  whether  it  was  accom- 
panied with  the  purification  or  ablution  with  which  the  Jews  generally 
accompanied  and  always  concluded  their  penitential  exercises  [or  not]  ; 
and  that  of  suffering,  which  the  Saviour  came  to  undergo,  and  in  which, 
several  of  his  martyrs  followed.  Upon  this  view,  "Baptism  for  the 
dead"  means  doing  works  of  penance  and  prayer,  to  entreat  mercy  and 
pardon  for  the  departed  faithful.  And  the  argument  of  St.  Paul,  is 
a  proof  of  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  exhibited  by  those  who  pray 
and  do  penance  for  the  relief  of  the  dead,  which  custom  of  penitential 
prayer  for  the  dead,  was  common  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  and  as  I 
shall  hereafter  show,  in  the  days  of  our  Saviour,  and  in  the  true  Church 
before  the  coming  of  Christ.  In  this  point  of  view,  we  have  full  evi- 
dence of  the  doctrine  being  contained  in  those  passages  which  I  have 
quoted,  as  it  is  in  several  others  in  the  New  Testament  which  I  have 
omitted.  I  shall  therefore  in  my  next  pass  on  to  show  that  the  evidence  of 
this  doctrine  is  contained  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  that  it  was  one  of  the 
articles  of  true  religion  before  the  coming  of  the  Saviour.  Hence  so  far 
from  having  been  brought  to  light  by  tradition  at  the  time  of  the  dis- 
use of  canonical  penances,  which  was  about  seven,  or  eight,  or  ten  cen- 
turies after  the  birth  of  our  Saviour ;  I  shall  show  that  it  was  believed  by 
the  faithful,  seven  or  eight  or  ten  centuries  before  that  period,  and 
thence  to  the  present  day,  as  I  have  shown  it  to  have  been  recognized, 
and  alluded  to  by  our  blessed  Lord  and  his  Apostles;  but  it  was  no 
more  necessary  for  the  founder  of  the  Christian  law  to  have  given  a 
new  revelation  upon  the  subject,  than  to  have  given  it  upon  the  spir- 


562  CONTROVERSY  Vol. 

ituality  and  immortality  of  the  human  soul,  which  like  the  doctrine  of 
purgatory,  were  kno"\\Ti  and  believed  during  previous  centuries. 

I  remain,  yours,  and  so  forth, 

B.    C. 


COLUMBIA   UNIVERSITY   LIBRARIES 

This  book  is  due  on  the  date  indicated  below,  or  at  the 
expiration  of  a  definite  period  after  the  date  of  borrowing,  as 
provided  by  the  library  rules  or  by  special  arrangement  with 


the  Librarian  ir 

i  Charge. 

DATE  BORROWED 

DATE  DUE 

DATE  BORROWED 

DATE  DUE 

C2e(ll49)  lOOM 

*S035519029 

^nniLEDONOl 
PHOTOCOPY 


